1921-04-26

RESEARCH COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 116 to amend the Research Council Act.
Mr. JACOBS:: Explain.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The Bill is for the purpose of making some amendments in the Act with reference to the Advisory Council of Scientific Research, and providing for the establishment of a National Research Institute. The matter will be fully explained on the second reading of the Bill. This simply indicates its purpose.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.	'



PRIVATE BILLS FROM THE SENATE-FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108, respecting the Dominion Express Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.

Bill No. 109, for the relief of John Edward Kelly.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Annie Belle Westbeare.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Christian Wilson Stephens.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Alice Andrews.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 113, for" the relief of Esther Annie Vanzant.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Werden Grant Parker.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of James Edward Nixon.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire, with your permission, on behalf of the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission to advise members of this House that the first stage of the competition in design for the eight battlefield memorials to be erected in France and Belgium by the Canadian Government was concluded on the 15th instant. By that date one hundred and sixty sets of designs had been received. These were judged anonymously by the following Board of Assessors: Professor C. H. Reilly, Liverpool, nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects; Professor Paul P. Cret, nominated by the Societies des Architects Paris, and Professor Frank Darling, nominated by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. Of these one hundred and sixty competitors, seventeen designers were selected to enter the final stage of the competition. This will involve the submission of models of their designs. The conditions for the final stage of the competition are now being prepared and will be sent to the seventeen selected designers in the course of a few days.
The successful competitors of the first stage have been notified officially and an article also appeared in yesterday's papers giving their names and addresses. The successful designs are now on view in the Railway Committee Rooms, House of Commons, and I shall be glad if hon. members will avail themselves of the opportunity of inspecting them.
PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) made

a statement to the House with reference to the approaching: Prime Ministers' Conference to be held in London in June next, and in course of his observations he said that:
-the June meeting would he of a special and preliminary character having in view the necessity of discussing-
And then he proceeded to enumerate a series of subjects. Within a few hours of that statement being made in this House, Mr. Winston Churchill is reported to have made a speech in London, and in dealing with the subject of the conference he is alleged to have said:
The Conference was not to he a temporary or occasional affair or a periodical institution, hut a meeting of the regular Imperial Cabinet. He thought they could anticipate a properly successful series of discussions.
I desire to ask the right hon. gentleman if he can explain the difference of opinion that evidently exists with regard to the character and scope of the approaching conference, and whether his definition or that of Mr. Winston Churchill is the correct one?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the definition that I gave in the outline not Only of the character but of the proposed proceedings was based upon communications that had passed between the Government of Great Britain and ourselves, and the references to it that appeared more noticeably at the end of the statement were based more exclusively upon the view of Canada. As to whether it should be described as an Imperial Cabinet or as Prime Ministers' Conference, I think the latter nomenclature is the better. The Imperial War Cabinet is the only Imperial Cabinet that has ever met, and it met for purposes that had to do with the temporary condition of war. This is the first meeting of Prime Ministers of this character. Whether it becomes permanent or not, it is too soon yet to predict.



SASKATCHEWAN SENATE REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) :: May I be permitted to draw the attention of the Government to a despatch appearing in La Patrie? This is the English translation :
Ottawa, April 25.-It has been authentically reported that Mr. J. N. Dupuis, president of Dupuis Fr&res, Montreal, has been appointed Senator and is going to he sworn to-morrow.
This appointment was on the Order of the Day lately, and to-day it is believed to be official.
Mr. Dupuis would then succeed to the late Senator Prince of Battleford (Saskatchewan).
In view of this despatch, I would ask the Government if they think it is in the interest, first, of North Saskatchewan, and secondly, of the West as a whole that a gentleman should be selected from Montreal to represent North Saskatchewan in the Senate?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I feel
flattered at the question addressed to me by the hon. member. I know of no one selected as a senator within the last few days, and I would think that Saskatchewan which in the past has been able to supply its own senators could be depended upon to do so in the future.



THE INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a matter of urgent public importance in view of the fact that the income tax returns and payments must be made this week. On March 29 the attention of the Government was drawn to the difficulty experienced by the public in being compelled to compute the tax, and the uneasiness in the public mind with regard to certain penalties which might be applied. The suggestion was made then-I think it was by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux)-that the method of last year should be continued this year, by which the statement was made out by the tax' payer, a bill forwarded to the taxpayer by the department, and the amount then paid in due course. The Prime Minister at that time replied as follows:
The Minister of Finance is unfortunately absent, being engaged this afternoon addressing an audience in the city. However, I feel safe in intimating-though nothing in the nature of a definite announcement can 'b'e made until his return-that the regulations have been under reconsideration, and I believe that the Minister of Finance has a method which he thinks of proposing that would not be open to objections of the nature suggested by the hon. member. I will call his attention to the matter.
So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no further announcement has been made with regard to that, although the matter is of very considerable importance. In view of the uneasiness in the public mind and of the undoubted difficulty and perhaps inability on the part of taxpayers not only to make

out their statements but to compute the amount of tax which they have to pay, I would ask the Government whether they are ready to announce any new method, and if so what the nature of it is?


Arthur Meighen: The statement I made, which I recall quite clearly at the recitation of the hon. member, was based on a conversation I had had a short time before with the Finance Minister. My recollection is that the Finance Minister has referred to the subject since in the House; I may not be right as to that. He is in the city to-day. I will draw his attention to what the hon. member says, and it will be spoken to not later than to-morrow, possibly later to-day.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer) :: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who is apparently engaged largely outside in giving his fiscal views in public meetings, may I ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister if we are likely to have those fiscal views where they really matter, in the shape of a budget, at a reasonably early day?


Arthur Meighen: The answer to that
question is: Yes.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask my right hon. friend if he can give the House any approximate date on which we shall have the Budget?


Arthur Meighen: Anything more approximate than I gave to the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would have to come from the Minister of Finance. I may say, however, that I do not think the patience of my hon. friend will be very severely tried much longer.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Civil government-Immigration and Coloniza-t- salaries, $193,257.50; contingencies, $40,-


Mr. CALDER:: Before the committee enters upon a detailed discussion of the Estimates of the department I should like to make a general statement regarding some of the features of our immigration policy and regarding immigration matters generally. I think it will probably save time and be very helpful to' the members in the detailed discussion which will follow.

It will be remembered that some time ago the member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Mr. Desiauriers) introduced a resolution, the object of which was to provide for the total exclusion of all immigrants during what he considered to be the abnormal period through which we are passing. At that time we had a very considerable discussion, many members taking part in the debate. It will be recalled that it occurred on a Wednesday afternoon; the House was not sitting that night, and the debate was concluded at six o'clock upon my suggestion that the hon. gentleman should withdraw his motion, that an opportunity would be given later in the session for a full discussion. I trust that at this time I shall not be transgressing the rules if I make some reference to the debate that occurred then. On that occasion a number of questions were asked and some criticisms were made against certain features of the work being carried on by the Department of Immigration. At the outset I would like to place before the committee very squarely the main question of policy that was raised in that debate. It was this: Should we at this time absolutely close the door against all immigration? It was asserted that every person of sound mind and sound body who was willing to work should be admitted to Canada, regardless of all other considerations. On the other hand, there were those who held that we should take into consideration economic, social and other conditions existing in Canada and that the numbers admitted should be limited. That was the main question in that discussion, and in order that the committee may understand what were the views taken by members on that occasion I would like to make some very brief references to what was then said by several hon. gentlemen.
The member for St. Mary, who introduced the resolution, took the ground that there should be absolute exclusion; that no immigrants should be admitted at the present time. The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) who followed and who seconded the motion, agreed in very large measure with the view taken by the member for St. Mary. He stated, however, that he would admit farmers but that there was no necessity for admitting artisans, labourers or others of that class. The member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) who followed, stated very clearly and very distinctly that in his judgment, while Canada needed men for the land, we should not admit any artisans at all; that there were sufficient artisans and

labourers in Canada at present to take care of all the work that was being offered. The member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) favoured rather the open door, as he said, with modifications. He was, however, a litle careful not to indicate exactly the nature of the modifications that he would consider wise. He intimated as well -not very definitely, but you can read it into his speech-that Canada at this time should be a land of refuge for the war-weary and the heavy laden of Europe. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boyce) took the ground that every honest man who was willing to work should be allowed to enter Canada, no matter where he came from, no matter what his nationality was, no matter what his views were, no matter whether he was assimilable in Canada or not -regardless of any or all conditions. The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) stated that, in his judgment, there were at the present time a sufficient number of artisans in Canada, and that we should bar the further entry of people of that class. He was very much opposed to the present money qualifications. The hon. member for New Wesminister (Mr. McQuarrie), stated that he had in the country many men who were not able to secure work, and that we should not admit others while these conditions existed. He took the ground that there should be the strictest kind of supervision as regards admitting immigrants to Canada at the present time. The hon. member for Stratheona (Mr. Douglas) took the ground that the regulations to-day were too restrictive, that they were shutting out too many people, and he gave us an instance of certain cases of settlements in western Canada where the people had got along very well. He evidently had in mind some people who had been shut out under the existing law, and he took the ground that those restrictions should be removed. The hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) stated that we should be most careful as to the class of immigrants that we admitted. He intimated that they should be in sympathy with our laws and institutions, and that any people in any part of the world who were not in sympathy with our laws and institutions should be debarred entry to Canada. The hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) expressed surprise that anyone would advocate the barring out of suitable immigrants. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin) took the ground that we should have a system under which anyone can come to Canada who is law abiding and willing to work. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson) agreed that there should be restrictions as regards certain classes. He said that what we need most of all is people for the land, and he took the ground that the present money qualification, which requires each male adult immigrant to have $250 in cash, should be removed, because it is likely to operate to prevent desirable people from coming to Canada. I need not quote any further.
It will be noticed that in that discussion two distinct views were expressed, one favouring the open door and the other the closed door. Then there was a middle view advocated by hon. members who expressed the idea that we should select and allow people to come to Canada, very great care being exercised as to the classes we admitted.
During the course of recent weeks, the press of Canada has contained a good many editorials and articles on this question of immigration, and merely for the purpose of getting the general question well before the committee, I desire to quote a few extracts from some of the leading Canadian papers. These are nearly typical, because there is in Canada scarcely a paper that has not had a good deal to say on this subject during the course of the past few months. The first quotation, which is very brief, is from the Manitoba Free Press, of Winnipeg. Under date of March 22, 1921, the Manitoba Free Press stated:
For some years past the Free Press has declared over and over again with all but damnable iteration that the true national policy of Canada at this stage is to develop our natural resources and primarily to get people on the land and keep them there.
The Toronto iStar on the same date stated:
The country is not in need of a further influx of city dwellers.
Then it goes on to express the same idea as the Manitoba Free Press, that is, that we should admit people freely for going on the land.
The Montreal Gazette on the following day, March 23,-1921, stated:
While farm labourers and domestic servants are more favoured, the financial bars have been raised against both skilled and unskilled labour. Temporary unemployment is not a valid reason for permanent adherence to a policy which holds the Canadian industrial field as a preserve for the labour now i.n it to the detriment of industry which cannot in such conditions expand except at increased labour cost.
In other words, the Gazette favoured the open door. It would admit artisans of all

classes freely, simply on the ground that we should not set up conditions which would establish in Canada a preserve, as it states, for existing labour in this country. The Mail and Empire, on March 22, in an editorial, stated:
Everything in reason should be done to encourage the right kind of people to cast their lot in Canada and enlist in the work of making this the great nation it ought to be, and at the same time every precaution should be taken to prevent Canada from being used as a dumping ground for the ofif-scourings of other populations.
.The Calgary Herald, on May 28, stated- this view is held by a good many people throughout Canada and by many hon. members in this House:
Immigration activities can safely be restricted for some years to the British Isles, the United States and the northern countries of Europe. Swedes, Norwegians, Danes and Icelanders have been amongst our best settlers. These fields will offer ample scope for the work of our immigration agencies for many years to come.
Those editorials all appeared somewhere about March 22 to 26, and I am sure they were based on two utterances made by prominent gentlemen in the country, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), leader of the Agrarian group, and Mr. Beatty. 1 desire to quote these as well. I hope I am not wearying the House in doing so, because I am endeavouring to lay a basis for a discussion which we shall doubtless have on the general question of policy.


Charles Murphy: Did the hon. gentleman quote any eastern papers?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. The Toronto Star and the Montreal Gazette. I find that the hon. member for Marquette, addressing a gathering in Toronto, made this statement as representing his view:
The Government should inaugurate a vigorous immigration policy bringing into Canada only people suitable for agricultural work and assimilable withj our population, adaptable for future citizenship through the possession of its potentialities. Those should be settled along our national railways and furnish the nucleus for future profit-paying traffic.
This is another quotation from the hon. member for Marquette, and from a speech which he delivered in Toronto. It appears in the Manitoba Free Press, of Winnipeg:
I am convinced that the only manner in which we can escape from the difficulties that lie ahead is by an increase in the population of this country. And that must come, largely, through immigration. Now, when we get immigration to this country we want to use some discrimination in whom we are taking to Canada. Our possibilities are such, our great fertile plains and all parts of Canada are such, that we can bring people to Canada, induce people to come

to Canada, and, if necessary, we should be able to assist them a little bit after they come here. This policy of immigration should go hand in hand with the railway problem. We want to bring people to this land, and, I submit, they should be people who will go on the farms.
We have enough people In our cities. I am told you have what is called a bread-line in the city of Toronto. Well, I want to tell you they have no bread-lines out in the rural districts of Canada, and, consequently, we do not wish to congregate more people in our cities. We wish to bring to Canada people who will go on the land, and cultivate the land, and produce off the land. We can get them. There are (ots of them available who will come here, attracted by our cheap lands, and we want to give all the assistance possible, and we want to settle these people along the lines of the national railways and create potential business for the roads.
That was the view then expressed by the hon. member for Marquette on the general question of policy. As I have said, a public statement was also made by Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was very freely discussed in the editorial and news columns of the press throughout Canada. I dare say most hon. members have read that statement, but I think it will do no harm at this juncture to read it again:
I am afraid that many people in Canada do not sufficiently realize that the most urgent and essential need to-day is increase in population, not only to provide traffic for the railways, but also to help pay our enormous national indebtedness. So far as the railways are concerned, the national railways are even more concerned in this demand for population than the Canadian Pacific, owing to the extent of sparsely populate^ country in which so much of their mileage is located. It was an aggressive immigration propaganda that built up the Canadian Pacific, and without immigration the prespects of the Canadian National are, in my opinion, hopeless.
Any legislation which would stem the tide of desirable immigration must inevitably pile up further deficits, for immigration is Canada's great salvation. Mr. Crerar, who was speaking particularly in the interests of the national railways, struck the right note when he declared before the Canadian Club in Montreal, that a wise and vigorous immigration policy would help solve the problem. Mr. Crerar also referred in another address to the foreign born immigrants, commending the progress they had made in Western Canada and pointing out that over fifty per cent of the students at Manitoba University were of foreign parentage.
The same evidence is contributed in an interesting article in the "Grain Growers' Guide," in reference to the three hundred thousand Ukrainians in Western Canada, in which it is stated that these people of sturdy farming stock from Central Europe have four large educational institutes at Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Edmonton, respectively, and had become a real asset to Canada. The people from the Scandinavian countries have made admirable settlers. During the year 1920, nearly 1,600 of these came as immigrants to Canada, of whom only 10 were deported. All of them are thrifty, hard working' people.

I quite agree with those who object to the immigration of city-bred Continentals of poor physique and doubtful health, who would at once drift into slums, or of large communities of foreign born who frankly declare they do not Intend to assimilate with English-speaking Canadians, but I consider it absolutely necessary to the immediate betterment of Canadian financial, commercial and traffic conditions, that the gates of Canada be once more opened not only to the British, French and American immigrant, but also to the Scandinavian and the more desirable type of Continental.
It is not only farm hands and domestics who are required. What progress can Canadian industry make if the skilled mechanic is to be practically shut out? And without Canadian industry where are we to find exports for the Canadian Merchant Marine? We neither can, nor dare stop this tide of desirable immigration, or say to it like Canute, "Thus Far and No Farther."
There is one other question I desire to make. It is taken from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, and comments on some of the views expressed in that statement by Mr. Beatty. The Free Press says:
Upon the general need of immigration there is no disagreement; but there is not uniformity of view as to the limitations that, in the general interests of the country, it is desirable to impose. Upon immigrants capable and willing to work on farms, and in the mines and forests, there need be no limitations whatever, as long as they come from the British Isles, or from northern Europe. With respect to immigration from eastern or central Europe, the bars need not be kept up absolutely, but it is obvious that, in view of the problem of assimilating and Cana-dianizing the Slavic elements in our population which is now a subject of concern in all the western provinces, there must be discretion shown, both with respect to the number and the character of immigrants of this class to whom the gates are opened. City-bred immigrants looking for occupation in our cities we do not want; but mere residence or even up-bringing i-n a city does not necessarily unfit a man for country life in Canada.
It is now a little over two years since our Immigation Act was revised and consolidated. At tbat time, as members of the House will recall, we had a very full discussion of the general policy involved. The point was raised then as to whether or not our law should be made .rigid, that is to say, whether in the law itself there should be set out in detail the classes of people that we should admit to Canada. We had a very full discussion of the subject, part of the discussion arising out of a resolution introduced by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn). It will be remembered that he proposed at that time that we should clearly set out in the law the peoples of Europe and Asia that we would not admit to Canada. That view finally did not prevail. The House came to the conclusion that our law should be left in a more lax state that is, that
discretionary power should be placed in the hands of the Government and the minister in charge of the administration of the law. We were given power to make regulations limiting the numbers that might come from certain countries, and excluding those who might seek to come from other countires, or to set up bars and restrictions that might have that effect. I merely mention that to indicate the view of the House at that time. Since then we have been operating under that law, and I scarcely need assure hon. members

because there are very few of them who have not had occasion in the past three years to come to me in connection with some immigration question- that a law of that kind is by no means easy to administer. Where you place in the hands of a department or a minister discretionary power, and where you have so many cases of people desiring to come to Canada that are border cases, where judgment must be exercised as to whether^ or not the party in question should be admitted-well, it is not an easy law to administer. I have no doubt that there is every likelihood that mistakes have been made, but where you have a law administered by a fairly large number of officers, a law that depends for its successful administration upon their exercising proper judgment, I am sure every hon. member will realize that cases will arise where, if they themselves had the deciding to do, probably the decision would have been the other way. Consequently there is a feeling that, in so far as a certain number of cases are concerned, some hardship may have resulted; but I can assure the House that, so far as I have come in contact with them, the officials of the department fully realize their duties and responsibilities in that regard and have exercised every reasonable precaution to see that the law is fairly and properly administered.
During recent months particularly there has been a good deal published in the press and a good deal said from the platform in favour of the adoption of a vig' orous immigration policy. These words have been frequently used both outside and in this House, and I am inclined some times to think that those who talk freely of "a vigorous immigration policy" use the expression rather vaguely. I have watched the press of Canada myself very closely, and it js very seldom that I can get anything in the way of an actual, concrete, definite and practical proposal from those who use indefinite language of that kind.
RiEVISED EDITION.

It is all very well simply to say that we must have a real vigorous, progressive immigration policy, but what do you mean by that? What do you intend to do? What is there that should be done that is not done at the present time? I do hope that during the discussion which we shall have here, if we have a discussion, hon. gentlemen who may be inclined to talk along that line will help me by suggesting something quite definite and concrete, something practical, which I shall be able to consider with a view to its adoption if it is both possible and practicable. I think that one of the reasons for the fact that concrete proposals are not made is that very few people have a real knowledge of what is being done by the department, and fewer still a knowledge of what can be done; nor have they much knowledge of what the probable expenditure would be in case certain proposals were carried out. Now, as to the necessity of getting people. I do not see how there can be two opinions on that point. In my view, the policy of total exclusion of immigrants from Canada, in the first place, is impracticable-because it cannot be done; and, in the second place, it would be suicidal to the interests of Canada as a whole if we attempted such a policy. My own view is that we should endeavour to get people just as rapidly as we possibly can, and the reasons for that view have been set out in these articles from which I have quoted. In the first place, so long as we have in Canada millions of acres of the finest land in the world awaiting development, and so long as there are thousands of people outside Canada capable of cultivating that land, then on purely humanitarian grounds, if upon no other, we should not put up any unreasonable bar to prevent those pepole from coming to our country. In the second place, as we all know, provincial and federal governments in Canada, during the course of the last twenty or thirty years, have by various means provided for the building of an enormous railway mileage in this country, far in excess of our actual requirements, and the result to-day is the people have to pay very heavy freight rates and taxation. Now, in my judgment, there is only one real solution for that problem, and that is traffic. These roads must get traffic and get it on a large scale or they will never pay. And you can get traffic only by bringing in people and having them produce, not only on the land, but in our mines, our forests, our fisheries, and in connection with all the other resources we have in this country. So that on that 
ground also, we need people in large numbers and just as quickly as we can possibly get them, and I doubt whether there is a member who does not agree with that proposition. There is a third reason advanced with which I have not so much sympathy, and that is, that we should bring in people in order to decrease our own taxation-I am referring particularly to the national debt growing out of the war. Now, I doubt very much the wisdom of that proposal. While it is true that we have a large debt, it is much smaller than in the case of most other nations that took part in the war, and I am inclined to think that even if we never got people we should be able to take care of that debt. Nevertheless, we should welcome people who could come and help us in that respect. It is a factor that should not be lost sight of in the adoption of any immigration policy. But I do not like the idea of inviting people to come in to take care of our debt, I do not think we should hold out any such invitation; the discharge of our debt should be regarded as incidental in this connection.


Mr. McMASTER:: You do not want to
put it on the invitation card.


James Alexander Calder: Exactly. Now, granted that we do need people,-and I think we all agree to that,-how are we to get them? I can tell you one very simple way: all we have to do is to take down the restrictions that we have at the present time. We can get thousands upon thousands of people into this country to-day, if we want them, by taking down the bars. The real problem, in my judgment, is not simply to get people; we must get the right kind of people. And in another sense, the real [DOT] problem, or at least one important phase of it, which the department has to deal with at the present time, is not to get people, but to shut out certain classes of people from Canada. I shall deal with some aspects of that question a little later on. I say again that if Canada merely wants people, people standing on two feet with no other qualifications, and if you do not want to consider anything else at all, we shall have not the slightest trouble in getting them. They will come by hundreds of thousands. Is Canada ready for that? Does Canada need certain classes of people at the present time? Would it be detrimental to this country to-day if certain people were allowed in? That is the question to be considered. Those who advocate the adoption of a vigorous immigration policy probably have in mind

that all we need is people. Well, we need something more than that, in my judgment. As every member of the House knows, we have been, and are now still, passing through more or less abnormal times. We have had a serious unemployment situation in Canada, and we are not yet out of the woods. I think the situation is easing off and that there is less unemployment today than there was some time ago; and, as the summer months come along, unemployment, I believe, will be still less. But let me ask this question: So long as the federal Government and the provinces and municipalities, who during all these months have been paying money out to take care of unemployment in our cities, are still faced with the problem, do you think that it would be a wise policy to take down the bars and allow labour, both skilled and unskilled, to flock into this country now? Do you think we should pump in more workers to aggravate that situation? I do not think we should, and that is a fact that must be taken into consideration.
During the last three years, as a matter of fact, the department has right along encouraged mainly three classes of people to come to Canada: the farmer, the agricultural worker, and the household worker or domestic servant. Our energies have been very largely devoted along these lines. Why? Simply on account of the conditions that have prevailed in this country during those three years; on account of the unemployment situation that has existed and still exists in Canada. Have we got back to normal conditions such as existed a few years ago? Take back in 1911, 1912, and 1913, when business of all kinds was booming in this country. I know that out in Western Canada every one of our municipalities was carrying on huge municipal works; construction works were going on everywhere. We never had such a real development, I think, as at that time; we could absorb all sorts of artisans and labour of all classes who came to Canada at that time very freely. Well, if conditions of that kind can be brought about again we will have no difficulty in getting the workers who are necessary to carry on that work. But I maintain that so long as these abnormal conditions existed, this department of the Government has pursued the right policy in holding a check upon certain classes of people who are endeavouring to come to Canada. Now, by that I do not paean that we have entirely excluded skilled or unskilled labour-not at all. As a matter of
163J
fact we have admitted some thousands of these people during the past few years. Whenever we have found that labour of any class either skilled or unskilled is required in Canada, and is not available here, we have not hesitated to get that labour. We have worked in the very closest way with the Labour Department; the two departments have worked hand in hand. Wherever a shortage of labour, either skilled or unskilled, has existed we have not hesitated at all to set our agencies at work to secure whatever labour was required.
Just a word or two, Mr. Chairman, as to the movement of immigration to Canada. I find that a good deal of ignorance exists as to what has been actually taking place this last two or three years. There are a good many people who think nothing has been done, that no people are coming to Canada, that the moneys appropriated by this Parliament from year to year have been wasted, that we might as well stop this expenditure; and reference has been made in a previous debate to the wonderful results secured during the period from 1896 down to 1911 when the West was filled up and all our Prairie Provinces got a very great influx of people. Well, now, <I would be the last man in the world to attempt to detract in any way from the real, national work that was done during that period-it was a great work and deserving of every credit. But our people, as a rule, have no idea as to what has actually taken place, in so far as immigration numbers are concerned, during the past few years, and it is for that reason 1 went through our statistics, and I wish to place some of them before the House in order that hon. gentlemen may realize the facts. I am not going to read all the figures, but I am going to give the totals and averages. Those who live in the West will remember the conditions that existed there prior to 1896 in so far as settlement is concerned. Prom 1897 down to 1901, a five-year period, there were 171,203 people entered all of Canada-171,203 people in a period of five years. Those are statistics, those are facts, those are the records of the department. In other words, during that period of five years from 1897 down to 1901 there was an average each year of only 34,240 people entered Canada. Let us take the next five-year period-but let me pause here just for a moment to make a comparison because I think I had better do that as I go along. During the last few years we had an average immigration into

this country of 133,402. In 1919 there were 117,336 people entered Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister say if those are the net figures, or is he deducting-


James Alexander Calder: I am speaking of the people who entered Canada as immigrants.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the minister the
number of who left Canada?


James Alexander Calder: No. I cannot give those figures. There were 117,336 persons entered Canada in 1919-20. For the eleven months of this past year there were 137,468, and it is estimated that when we have - all the figures and they are
4 p.m. finally revised, our immigration for the year will be found to amount to in the neighbourhood of 149,468. This makes a total for these two years of 266,804 people, or an average for the two years of 133,402.


William Daum Euler: Does that provide for the deportations during the year? I see a list here of something like 13,000 that were deported?


James Alexander Calder: There were no 13,000
deported. They may be rejections, which are very different; I will come to those shortly.


Mr. WHITE:: Do the minister's figures
for 1919 include the Hutterites? I understand there were a great number of them in the West but they have since left; they did not comply with our regulations?


James Alexander Calder: No, there were^ very
few Hutterites entered Canada; they would not number more than a hundred or two hundred all told. They have not all returned; they are still in the province of Manitoba. I repeat that during the past two years we have had an estimated average immigration-that is of people who have landed in Canada as immigrants-of 133,402. Now, going back: During the five years from 1897 to 1901, the average number of people who landed in Canada each year was only 34,240 as against 133,402 for the last two years. Taking the next five-year period, that is from 1902 to 1906, the total number of people landed in all of Canada was 661,405, or an average of 132,281, as against an average the last two years of 133,402. Now, people do not know these facts. People have an idea back in those days there was a tremendous immigration boom such as Canada has never seen since. As a matter of fact during the ten years of that period from

1897 down to 1906 the annual average for the whole ten-year period was only 83,260, as against an average during the past two years of 133,402. During the following five-year period, from 1907 down to 1911, the statistics show, the number of people who entered Canada was 1,053,922, or an average for each year of 210,784. The average during the last two years was 133,402. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a factor, and a very important factor that enters there. It is now some three or four years since every homestead in Western Canada was taken out of settlement. We could not advise a single man in the United States, or in Great Britain, that when he came to this Dominion he could get a homestead in Western Canada except those away out from the railways. Because, as a matter of fact, Parliament had agreed that there should be reserved for the soldiers all lands existing within fifteen miles,-1 think it was,-or every railway in the West. As a consequence, during the last two or three years we have not had the (privilege of inviting any people to come to Canada to get free lands as they could in the old days. Notwithstanding that fact, the comparison still shows that, although the free lands were not available, the numbers coming to Canada, in comparison to those who came in the days to which I have referred, were by no means small. If you take the full period from 1897 down to 1911-a fifteen-year period -the average immigration to Canada during the whole fifteen years amounted to 125,768 as against, again, an average of 133,402 during the last two years. The peak load of our immigration occurred in the years following 1911. And there was reason for that. In those years Canada was a booming country-we boomed as we had never boomed before. In 1912, 1913 and 1914 we received an average each year of no less than 380,515 immigrants. Then came the war.
Now, that is not the whole story. I wish to give the Committee some idea of comparative figures as to the number of immigrants from Great Britain, the United States and other countries.


Richard Smeaton White: Before the minister gives
those figures, could he tell us how many of the 133,000 were soldiers' wives? The statement seems remarkable to me, a Western man, for I have not seen this influx of settlers. Perhaps this might be accounted for by a large number of soldiers' wives being included in that figure.


James Alexander Calder: No, as a matter of fact
those figures do not include soldiers and their dependents who had not been in Canada before; these were kept entirely separate from the total. Of course, the hon. gentleman must not be surprised if large numbers of these people have not gone on the land in Western Canada-I shall refer to that a little later-and I am sure he understands the reasons why.
Now, as regards British immigration during these periods:	I am not going
over all the figures I have here, but during the fifteen year period from 1897 to 1911 the total British immigration was 723,424, or an annual average of 48,228, as against an average during the last two years of 68,001. In other words, we got on an average from Great Britain during these last two years more people than the average annual influx during that boom period about which we hear so much talk. The war did not materially affect our immigration from the United States. The everage immigration from that source during the fifteen-year period was 43,361, whereas the average during the last seven years, including the war period, was 52,549. In other words, during the last seven years we received from the United States annually 9,000 more people than during the fifteen-year period down to 1911. In addition to that it will be of interest to the Committee to know that for the eleven months of last year for which I have exact figures our settlers from the United States brought with them, according to the returns, property valued at no less than $14,425,411.61.


Mr. BELAND:: Has the minister given
the total from the United States for the same period?


James Alexander Calder: I can give the figures.
The total from the United States for the fifteen-year period was 650,429.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And the average?


James Alexander Calder: For that fifteen-year
period, 43,361, and for the last two years, 52,549.


Charles Murphy: What class of settlers
brought in that fourteen million dollars odd?


James Alexander Calder: All classes. When a
person comes in from the United States and brings his effects, whether he be a farmer or a householder, his goods must be entered at the customs house and valued.


Charles Murphy: What amount was
brought in by other settlers during the same period?


James Alexander Calder: I have not those figures before me at the present time, but they would be very easily ascertainable, because a record is kept.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: As a matter of fact
the minister does not deny that the great boom in the Western Provinces began in 1897?


James Alexander Calder: Certainly. I said at
the outset that I did not wish to detract from the work done at that time. But there is a factor that very many people lose sight of, and that is that a very large part of the West was settled by Easterners, not by immigrants. You can scarcely go anywhere in the Prairie Provinces without meeting people from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. Thousands of people from Eastern Canada moved West. The West has not been filled up entirely by people coming into Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But my recollection
is that those large European colonies of good immigrants, such as Galicians, Russians and other people from Central Europe, came during the period after 1897. I remember seeing long trains of such immigrants passing through Ottawa.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite correct.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has the minister given the total figures for the fifteen-year period?


James Alexander Calder: I gave those figures to the Committee.


Charles Murphy: The hon. minister has said that a record is kept of the value of goods brought in by immigrants. Is that record kept here?


James Alexander Calder: I would imagine that it is kept at the seaboard. All goods passed by immigrants must be classified and a record of the total value kept by the customs authorities. I have not the figures before me, but I would think they would be very easily ascertainable.


Charles Murphy: So there is no basis of comparison available at the moment of the value of goods brought in by immigrants from other countries as against the value brought in by immigrants from the United States?


James Alexander Calder: No, I have not those
figures at hand. I wish to refer for a few moments to another feature of the situa-

tion. A good many people fail to realize that conditions in Canada from the standpoint of immigration are not the same to-day as they were some years ago; they have changed very materially. Many people have an idea that there is an unlimited number of homesteads still available. That is not the case. You can draw a line across the three provinces passing through, say, Prince Albert and away north to Edmonton, and from there to the International boundary, a distance of 250 or 300 miles, there is not a homestead left that is reasonably fit for homesteading. Members who are acquainted with the western provinces will agree with me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not under cultivation?


James Alexander Calder: Not all under cultivation by any means. But at the time we were supposed to have that very heavy immigration, when the country was settled up by leaps and bounds, we had millions of acres of the finest land in the world of which a man could get 160 acres by payment of a fee oi: $10.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And then he was given the right of pre-emption on adjoining lands.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, there were provisions for pre-empting. Well that day has gone. Do not misunderstand me; I do not say that in Western Canada there are not lands that can be homesteaded, but those which are available are largely distant from railways; they are mostly in northern portions of the provinces and partly or wholly covered with timber, bush or scrub. They are not in the open prairies where a man can stick his plough in the ground and plough up 160 acres without any trouble; they are homesteads upon which capital must be invested and upon which hard work.must be done before the land is fit for farming. So that those who have the idea that we are living in the old days, so far as the West is concerned at any rate-well, they "have another guess coming." In the carrying on of its publicity work to-day the Department of Immigration is not in a position to hold out to the prospective settler the inducements that could be held out in the old days. We cannot advertise that we have all this available land for homestead purposes. That was the great drawing card in the old days; that is what brought thousands of people to this country. I know that we till have an abundance of land. The member for Maisonneuve was referring the

other day to what was taking place in the Abitibi region, and the same is true, to a more or less limited extent, along the Transcontinental, along the Canadian Northern, and in the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba. But the condition is by no means the same as it was in the old days.
I would like the committee to bear another fact in mind, and I would like the people of Canada to understand it clearly. People say that we should adopt a vigorous immigration policy bo get people from Northern ^Europe. What is meant by the adoption of a vigorous immigration policy? It means the establishment of agencies in those countries, the putting in of men who will go round and advise the people to come to Canada; who will lecture bo them, distribute pamphlets, and do things of that kind. Well, we cannot do that.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


James Alexander Calder: They simply will not let us do it. I have had that situation inquired into very carefully. It is all very well for people to say, for instance, that we should send our agents to Denmark, turn them loose there, establish half a dozen offices in that country, get our literature out in the Danish language and carry on a publicity compaign, and so on. But the people of Denmark will not let us do that sort of thing; the people of Scandinavia will not let us do it; the people of Belgium will not let us do it; nor will the people of France. Do you imagine that France wants us to send agents over there who will advise her people to come to Canada? Why, they have lost something like a million men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: More.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, I daresay, more.
Well, do you imagine that they want us to send our propagandists there to invite their people to come to Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad my hon.
friend brought up this point. Even before the war the French Government warned the Canadian Office in Paris not to carry on any propaganda to that end.


James Alexander Calder: Quite true. We remember what occurred in Austria, where we were getting these Galician people; we remember how the Government of Austria stepped in and put an end to the publicity work that was being carried on. So those who have the idea that all the department has to do is get together a huge staff and send it to Europe for the purpose of carrying

on publicity work and propaganda to get settlers to come to Canada should realize that we simply cannot do it; that it is not possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think, however, that in Poland some excellent farmers could be obtained.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite possible.
I have a note which I will come to shortly on that general question.
In the old days we had an office in Antwerp, if I remember rightly, and there was one in Copenhagen for a short while. We also had an agency in Paris. These were the only three agents we had on the continent, so far as I have been able to gather, prior to the period of the war. I have discussed the matter with officials of the department and they tell me that most careful inquiries indicate that the governments of these countries will not allow us to send our agents there for the purpose of drawing away their people. On the other hand, they do not take the stand that their people should not leave. If a certain number of their people want to go it is their business, and no obstacle is placed in their way, but the governments leave it to the people themselves to decide where they will go and when they will go. All we can do is welcome those who turn their thoughts this way and assist them all we can after they come here. There is one way in which we can get people from these countries and that is through the transportation companies. In Sweden, for instance, there are a number of gentlemen of that country engaged in the transportation business. When an intending immigrant goes into the office there is nothing to prevent the transportation company from advising him where to go, and we get a certain number of these people, because some of the transportation companies are interested in inducing them to come to Canada.
Now, I wish it to be clearly understood that, so far as my information goes-and I have made careful inquiries in many quarters- our Government cannot put its propagandists in those countries for the purpose of securing emigrants from them. If we take the slightest step to start anything of that kind. I have no doubt the governments of these countries would very quickly put an end to it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that the
chief objection to emigration from these countries is that their governments do not
wish to see those capable of military service leave the country. As for the others, I understand they have no serious objection.


James Alexander Calder: Well, that may be. Now, just another point. The suggestion is very frequently made that we should endeavour to secure a large number of agriculturists from Great Britain. The committee is aware that the agricultural population of Great Britain comprises only about fifteen per cent of the total population. They are an industrial, not an agricultural people. At no time during the last twenty or twenty-five years have the agriculturists of Great Britain been so well off as they are now. I was over there last year and had an opportunity of visiting nearly all our agencies and in getting in touch with the situation. Wherever I went, there was no material discontent among the farming population. They are getting higher prices than ever before for everything they produce. In addition to that, farm labour has been unionized over there and they have been able to insist upon better hours, better living conditions and better wages. The conditions with respect to that field, therefore, are not the same as they were a few years ago; we cannot now attract men from the British farms as we did then. Economic conditions in Great Britain must change very materially before we shall be able to attract to Canada even a small number of British agriculturists. Now, that is a fact that is not very well known.
I come now to the question that has been raised: Whether we should admit people from Eastern and Central Europe in large numbers, even if they are farmers. At present we have a total exclusion order against the people of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey. That order was made some two or three years ago and still remains.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


James Alexander Calder: Whether or not the time has come for its removal I am not going to say. I would like to hear an expression of the views of members on that point.


William Daum Euler: How many Germans were admitted, say in the year 1912 or 1913, when immigration was very heavy? Has the minister that information?


James Alexander Calder: I have not those figures at hand. I would imagine that the number would be fairly heavy. At any rate, we have that exclusion order in force at the

present time. The question was raised the other day by the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. Douglas). He pictured certain settlements in Western Canada, settled by Russians, Austrians, Poles, Roumanians and other people of that class. I thoroughly agree with the statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A moment ago I mentioned Poles. Does the minister include Poles who formerly belonged to Prussian Poland amongst the Germans? When I mentioned Poles, I referred to Poles, whether they were under Russian, Prussian or Austrian rule. They are a race by themselves, and I should like the minister to believe that when I mentioned Poland, I referred to Central Europe as being a field for our immigration.


James Alexander Calder: As the order stands, it would include some of the Poles. It covers, I think, the geographical area of those countries as they existed before the war. I am not, however, certain on that point.


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand the matter, it is just the opposite. That is to say, the whole territory that is now incorporated in Poland, is treated as part of Poland, and the inhabitants are called Polish Nationals, so that any person who is resident now in Galicia, that large country which was formerly part of Austria, is now treated as part of Poland, and immigrants from that country are free to enter.


James Alexander Calder: That is the rule that should be adopted. To come back, I was speaking of settlements in Western Canada composed of those people. The hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) pictured those settlements as having made very considerable progress. He stated that those people had 'added very materially to the wealth of Canada; that they were prosperous and law-abiding. With that I agree. I know those settlements well; I have known them for years; I have spent many a day in them; I have lived amongst those people, and I know what they have done.


Samuel William Jacobs: They voted for you.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, many of them voted for me as well. You have the two views expressed. Mr. Beatty, for example, on the one hand, holds the view that those people should be admitted very freely to Canada if they are the right kind of people -farmers and others of that class. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. TMr. Calder.]
Crerar) holds a different view. The quotation of his statements which I gave from the Manitoba Free Press, distinctly states that we must be very careful in admitting those people in large numbers at the present time on account of conditions in Western Canada. Those people are not of the same race; they have different ideals, different customs. It is quite true, I have no doubt, that, in the process of time they will become assimilated; but whether we should admit large numbers of those people in a comparatively short time where those three Prairie Provinces have had many difficulties in the past, is a problem that must be very carefully considered.


An hon. MEMBER:: What-


James Alexander Calder: We are in committee now and there will be plenty of opportunity for asking questions afterwards. I would prefer it if hon. members refrained from asking questions at present, because that naturally throws me off. What I was going to say is this, that down to the present time, on account of those people with their ideals, customs and ideas coming and settling in large communities together, all three provinces in Western Canada have had a great deal of trouble on their hands from the educational standpoint, the social standpoint, and that sort of thing. I think I am voicing the view of the majority of the people of Western Canada when I say that, while they consider those people to whom I refer as suitable as being farmers and from the standpoint of wealth production, and being able to succeed and to be eventually assimilated, they say: "Do not bring these people in in such numbers that they will be out of proportion to the peoplh in these provinces now; we have enough trouble on our hands at present."


Mr. CAHILL:: What is the nature of the trouble of which the minister speaks?


James Alexander Calder: I was referring particularly to the trouble which they have had in connection with their educational problem.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the educational problem not largely due to the Dominion Government's agreement? Did the Dominion Government not make an agreement of that kind with the Mennonites when they came in?


James Alexander Calder: It has nothing to do with that at all. Just a word as to the regulations that we have put into force in order,

if possible, to check the flow of people who may be regarded as undesirable or not needed in Canada at the present time. During the progress of the previous debate, many hon. members referred to the two Orders in Council providing for certain regulations. Let me say in the first place that at the present time-and I am sure I am not exaggerating-there are in the big cities^ in the small cities and in the ports of Europe, hundreds of thousands of people awaiting entry into either Canada or the United States. Many of those people are war refugees; many of them have lost everything they had in the world, and are looking out over the world to find a new country in which they can make a home. Many of thean are penniless; they simply endeavour to scrape together what they can to get out to some new country. They are weary of Europe and all that it means to them, and they want to get away. We have set up two restrictions in an endeavour to hold back that flood. In the first place, we have increased the money qualification, and a good deal of objection was taken to that in the House the other day. The Order in Council now in force provides that, with the exception of farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants, all other classes of skilled and unskilled labourers, must have $250 in cash. In ordinary times the money qualification required is only $50.


Richard Smeaton White: Farm labourers are
allowed in free?


James Alexander Calder: All farm labourers, all farmers, all domestic servants, are allowed in even if they have nothing in their pocket. As regards others, if a man is accompanied by his wife, he must have $125 in addition, and if accompanied by minor children, he must have $50 in addition for each child. Hon. members can easily calculate how much money a family would have to have. The question, in a nutshell, is, whether or not we should relax. The other day when the subject was under discussion, many members said that we had a money restriction on farmers and farm labourers desirous of ccaning to Canada. That is not so, and it never has been so. We have put up the money qualification to restrict city dwellers, skilled and unskilled labour. Does any person mean to tell me that we should lower that restriction at the present time; that we should allow any man to enter Canada because he is sound in body and mind and willing to work, with nothing in his pocket; that we should allow 500 such
people to land in Toronto, 600 in Hamilton,
1,000	in Winnipeg and 2,000 in Vancouver? I doubt it very much.
I think some hon. gentlemen have an idea that this is a fixed thing. It is not fixed; it may be changed at any time. Just so soon as economic and other conditions in Canada warrant us in removing it, it can be removed. It is a matter that is entirely in the hands of the Governor in Council. But so long as conditions now prevailing continue, it seems to me, it is in the interests not only of Canada but of the immigrant himself that he should not be allowed to enter unless he has sufficient money to take care of him for a short while.


Michael Clark: He will be
all right if he has a good pair of hands.


James Alexander Calder: But the trouble there,
as my hon. friend will realize, is who is going to decide whether he has a good pair of hands?


Michael Clark: I decided that for myself.


James Alexander Calder: Here are thousands of
people desirous of coming into Canada. Are we going to decide in the case of every one of them whether he has a good pair of hands? You must have a restriction of that kind, or none at all, it seems to me.


Mr. RINFRET:: Does the immigrant
simply show the money, or must he deposit it?


James Alexander Calder: He must show it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: They just come in with the money; they do not deposit it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, the Government
leaves them the money.


James Alexander Calder: We do not take the
money from them. They simply show that they have it in their possession.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then the same money
might be shown by several different immigrants; it might be just loaned to them for the purpose of getting in?


James Alexander Calder: That would be very
difficult.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: These people art very
clever.


James Alexander Calder: I think our officers are
just about as clever as they are in that respect.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They take after the
minister.


James Alexander Calder: The other regulation to
which strong objection has been taken is that which requires people coming from a foreign country to come on a through ticket, by continuous passage. A man coming from Roumania, we will say, must come to Canada on a through ticket. He cannot loiter on the way, stopping off at his country and that, and finally purchase a ticket for Canada and land here. We retain the right to reject him in a case of that kind. We do not reject in every case, but we have that discretionary power. There is a reason for the existence of that regulation. Let me illustrate: During the course of the last few years thousands of people have got into the United States from foreign countries. It is very easy to cross the line into Canada. Now we use that regulation to debar people from this country who we think are not desirable. Ordinarily we admit United States citizens, but in the ease of undesirables who have got into the United States, and who desire to come into Canada, we put up this bar of the through ticket. The reason for that regulation is that a comparatively large number of persons in the United States who are not really desirable seek entry into Canada. There is another feature. If we did not have this regulation, and admitted one of these people and he afterwards turned out to be undesirable, we could not deport him to the United States, but would have to deport him to the country of origin. For instance, if he came from Bulgaria to the United States, stayed there for two or three or four months, and then crossed into Canada, if we wished to deport him we would have to send him back to Bulgaria. That is one of the reasons why this through ticket regulation has been adopted. I can see objections to it. There have been a certain number of cases of hardship, but nevertheless, from the standpoint of preventing undesirables from entering Canada. I can assure the House that it is a very useful regulation. In order to show how these two regulations have operated, I got the figures out to-day and when you see them in cold type it does not look as if any great hardship had resulted. Under the money regulation we have excluded at our ocean ports during eleven months of last year only 325 people. The number excluded at ocean ports out of some $93,701 people, because they did not have a through ticket, was only 264. On the other hand, see how these regulations operate against the great numbers of people in the United States who are [iMr. 'McMaster.]
seeking entry into Canada. There were turned back in those eleven months at boundary points intending immigrants from the United States to the number of 7,108, as against only 325 at ocean ports; and we turned back at boundary points 8,753, as against only 264 at ocean ports, because they did not have through tickets. In other words, in so far as the admission of undesirables into Canada from the United States is concerned, we find these two regulations most valuable indeed. If these regulations are to go, it seems to me there is only one thing for the House and the Government to do. Unless we are going to have some restrictions of this class or some other class, I think we will have to go back and consider what was suggested to the House some two years ago, we will have to put on a measure of total exclusion so far as certain classes are concerned; that is to say, we will have to say that certain classes of people shall not come into Canada, or that they shall only come in in limited numbers, as is now suggested by the Congress of the United States. It seems to me that we must either have a restrictive law as we have at the present time, leaving its administration largely in the hands of the Government as to the numbers that shall come in, and who shall be considered undesirable, or we must have a fixed law setting out clearly what classes of people shall not come in. I have been speaking for rather a long time-


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no closure on this.


James Alexander Calder: -but there has been a good deal of talk on the subject of immigration in the last two or three years, and I have thought it advisable that certain aspects of it should be clearly set forth before the House and the country.
It was suggested by the hon. member for Oxford the other day that we should arrange for the selection of our immigrants in Europe, that they should be examined over there, instead of allowing them to come to our shores and making the selection here. He pointed out that the present system entailed a great deal of expense and resulted in a great deal of hardship to those who happened to be rejected. Let us look at the question for a minute. At the present time there is no country in Europe where people are not desirous of coming to Canada; I will not except one country, there are hundreds, yes thousands of people in every one of these countries who want to come to Canada. How would you make

the selection in Europe? There is only one way of doing it. We would have to establish in every country in Europe the necessary machinery before which these people would have to go. We would have to have officers there to decide which man should come to Canada, and which should not, and not from the standpoint of money alone; the health of these people would also have to be examined. It would not simply mean that we would have to have an ordinary immigration agent there; we would have to have a doctor, and not an ordinary doctor, because one of the grounds upon which we exclude people from entering Canada is mental deficiency. So if we were to examine them on the other side, we would have to have a staff of immigration officers, a staff of doctors, and a staff of mental experts, in practically every country in Europe. If the House is prepared to vote the necessary Estimates in order to establish that machinery, we can do it. We can wipe out a great deal of hardship that exists, and cause the least possible degree of inconvenience to people, if this House is ready to sanction the necessary expense. But I doubt very much whether that would be done.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister knows very
well that, as a matter of fact, there are only a few ports in Europe from which people come,-Liverpool, Glasgow, Havre and one or two others,


James Alexander Calder: Yes, but suppose a man wants to come from Roumania; are you going to have him sell his home and everything that belong to him and go to Antwerp for examination by our officers and be there rejected after he has broken up his home?


Samuel William Jacobs: But people come to
Halifax and are turned away.


James Alexander Calder: It seems to me if the
problem is to be dealt with in a practical way, the steamship companies must cooperate with us and abide by our regulations. People come to Canada from all parts of Europe. We have immigrants from Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and from different ports in France, and we shall have people from various ports in the Baltic; and to examine them in Europe would mean the establishment, in every one of these ports, of machinery that would include medical officers as well as ordinary agents. That would not be practicable, on the ground of expense alone. While a certain amount of hardship does exist at the present time, taking the situation
all round, I think I am safe in saying that that hardship is comparatively small. The transportation companies know our regulations; they are in touch with the immigration officers all the time, and they know the class of people we admit. So that it is largely their business to see that only the proper class of people are sent over; and if there is a small percentage of weeding out to be done, it should be done here and not in Europe.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What steps does the
department take to ensure that any man who wants to get transportation is made aware of the requirements and is denied his ticket unless he complies with certain standards which are set for these companies? Are proper steps taken in that respect?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, the widest possible
publicity has been given to that phase of the situation, and this because some hardship has resulted from the regulations. Every steamship company in the business knows what the regulations are, and, in addition to that, through the British consuls all over Europe, we have advised the various governments as to what the law is and have taken various other steps to ensure that every person, so far as is possible, shall clearly understand it. There are some people, I dare say, who do not get that information, and they should be stopped on the other side, because the steamship companies are fully aware of the law. A great deal of trouble is due to the fact that a certain number of people are in the business in Europe simply for the profits they can get out of it, and they endeavour in every way possible to evade the regulations. So that if there is any blame it is largely attributable to them.
One word with regard to another problem that stares us in the face. During the course of the last two or three or four years, I have given a good deal of study to the land question, and I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way in which it can be solved. We can go on and get a certain number of people, as we are doing now, to go on the farms in this country, but it is going to be a mighty slow process, and we shall never get anywhere so long as we pursue the policy that has obtained in the past. The days of free land are practically gone, and you cannot buy land in Western Canada to-day for less than $12, $15, $20, $25 or $30 per acre. A man who wants 160 acres of land at $20 an acre must face, first of all, a capital

expenditure of $3,200, and then there must be taken into consideration the cost of buildings, plant, horses, and everything of that kind. In the old days, a man could come from Europe and settle on the finest land within twenty miles of Regina, and start on a comparatively small sum of money. Land of the same kind is there to-day, millions of acres of it, lying in the heart of settlements all through Western Canada, but no man can go and settle on it unless he has an average capital of, shall I say, $7,000 or $6,000 or thereabouts. I daresay opinions will differ as to the amount, but I would say that on any of that land that lies there available for settlement, it would require a capital of at least $5,000 before a man could put up his buildings, get his horses and machinery, and start operations.


Mr. LALOR:: By whom is that land held?


James Alexander Calder: Mostly by speculators,
and I estimate that there is anywhere from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 acres of it scattered over the Prairie Provinces. In my judgment, the land settlement of Canada will never take place in a large way until the State, as represented by both the federal and the provincial authorities, is prepared to step in and assist settlers financially. I hear one hon. gentleman applauding me.


Samuel William Jacobs: Count me in, too.


James Alexander Calder: 
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: For how many
years?


James Alexander Calder: It would vary because their laws were adopted at different times. I remember looking into this question some years ago, and I was simply astounded to find the results in one of the States, I think it was Victoria, where they had advanced millions of dollars for this work, and the records showed at the time I was making the study that they had practically not lost a single dollar as the result of their operation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What State was that?


James Alexander Calder: It was Victoria, if I
remember rightly.


Mr. ROBB:: How many settlers did they get?


James Alexander Calder: That I cannot say. I merely wish to make this point-and probably the time is now because we have huge liabilities, we have enormous responsibilities; the fact that we have had to advance $75,000,000 for soldiers' settlement is in itself something to consider,-that in the working out of this problem in the future, if it can be done, the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments of Canada must eventually adopt some form of financial assistance to settlers or we will

never have the question solved at all. It will never be solved if we are simply going to wait for wealthy people-because to came on our farms a man must be wealthy, except in the case of fringes of land in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta; if a man is going to go into the settled regions of Canada, where there are facilities and modern conveniences, he has got to be a wealthy man in order to establish himself.
I now want to refer for a moment or two to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) and that is the creation of the Western Canada Colonization Association. Many people have an idea that in a sense it is proposed that that association shall take the place of a department and exercise its functions. I can assure the hon. gentleman that that is not so in an sense. In my judgment there is a very distinct field of work for the new organization, brought into being by Mayor Brown of Medicine Hat and now under the management of General McRae, and I will explain the reason. In the old days in Western Canada land was held in large blocks by large colonization companies like the Luse Land Company, the Martin Company, the Has-lam Company, the Parsons Company, and others. These companies bought lands from the Canadian Pacific Company, or, in some cases got their lands from the Crown. They got large blocks of land containing many thousands of acres, and they carried on an extensive colonization work. They spent huge sums of money in advertising, they ran special trains all through the country, they brought thousands of visitors from the United States-they spent a great deal of money in disposing of those lands. That was quite outside of the operations of the department, which, in the meantime, was carrying on its ordinary homestead work. Well, in that respect the condition has changed; there are now only three large land owners in Western Canada to-day that we have to consider at all -the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern-which I think has about 800,000 acres-and the Hudson Bay Company. The others have practically all disappeared and in their place we have a great multiplicity of small landowners,-speculators, men in towns and villages in Western Canada and in Eastern Canada, many of them living in the United States and many in Great Britain, men scattered all over the world, who hold one, or two or three sections, or fractions of sections. And that is the land that must be disposed of. These
large land companies having disappeared, and having sold their holdings to individuals, there is no person now to look after the settlement and the sale of these lands. Would any one suggest that the Government should enter that business? Do you think the department should bring into being an organization that would go down into the States to get settlers-sell John Smith's land, and John Brown's land and Tom King's land? Well if we ever wanted to get into trouble we should
5 p.m. only need to enter upon that work. It would never do in the world, the department cannot act as a selling agent. Now, I think I am quite within the mark when I state that the main reason that lies at the very bottom of the creation of this new organization is that there are these millions of acres of lands owned by private individuals that they are desirous of finding buyers for, and they are trying to bring this organization into being very largely for that purpose. I discussed the whole thing with those interested before the organization was ever formed. I thoroughly agreed with the idea they had in mind. I pointed out the difficulties that the department would have in attempting to deal with that matter in any way at all, and the result was that eventually this organization was established with the full approval of the department. We have not any doubt at all that they have a splendid work to dp and that they will do it. Now I have kept the House a long time-


James Alexander Robb: Before the minister leaves that subject. He made references to 800,000 acres of land held by the Canadian Northern Railway. Are those lands vested in the State, do we own them along with the railway?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. Those lands came over with the other railway properties.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The minister does not
mean to imply in connection with the colonization scheme which he mentioned, that the sale of these lands is being made for the profit of the owners? The movement is in the interest of Western Canada and with a desire to promote immigration.


James Alexander Calder: Oh, certainly.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I know some thing about the scheme, and I understand that the manufacturers and the merchants in Eastern Canada, largely in Quebec and Ontario, have subscribed a million and a half of dollars for that purpose, but not with the idea o{ making any profit out of it.


James Alexander Calder: No, the object was not to sell these lands in order to favour certain individuals or to make a profit out of it-that was not the idea at all. These people realize that one of the real problems of Western Canada is to find a sale for all these sections and quarter-sections that are scattered through the midst of existing settlement, and they realize that some organization would have to be brought into being for the purpose of finding a solution of .that (problem, and not for profit making at all.


Michael Clark: The minister has made an interesting statement to which I .may or may not have something to say later. It has been very interesting but I think the minister could improve it by giving a short, succinct and compressed statement of what the present policy of the Government is in regard to immigration. We can infer a great deal from what the minister has said. He has stated a great many things, one way and another, and it is a good way , to lead to discussion, but I think the committee would like to know what is the exact policy of the Government at the present moment.


James Alexander Calder: That can be done in a very few words. I stated it two or three times. In the first place the Government for the last three years has followed the policy of encouraging, in every way possible, three classes of people to come to Canada-the farmer, the farm labourer,, and domestics.


Michael Clark: From where?


James Alexander Calder: From any part of the world.


Frank S. Cahill: Including Germany and
Austria?


James Alexander Calder: The exclusion in reference to those countries is still in existence.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Including China?


James Alexander Calder: ""Few farmers come to Canada from China.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes, but we get domestic servants from there.


James Alexander Calder: There is an exclusion
at the present time against not only Chinese but all Orientals in so far as skilled and unskilled labour is concerned. Generally speaking our policy has been to foster and encourage immigration to Canada of the classes I have mentioned. In the first place, there is a limitation in so far as immigrants from enemy countries are con-
	_
cerned, which is still in operation. In the second place, so far as the Slavonic races are concerned, while we have not stopped the entry of their nationals, we have not gone out of our way to encourage them to come here during the last two or three years. As to people from the countries of Northern Europe, we encourage all three classes from those countries. As regards skilled and unskilled labour, on account of conditions existing in Canada we have not encouraged that movement; as a matter of fact we have set up restrictions debarring those people entering Canada. I do not mean that there has been total exclusion, because whenever it has been represented to the department-and the same has been true in the past and will be true to-morrow and next month-and clearly shown, that there is any class of skilled or unskilled labour not available in this country, then we seek to promote the immigration of such men. I think, in a nutshell, that covers the general ground. We have set our face against the admission for the time being of city dwellers from continental Europe. Why? Simply because they come within that class which I have mentioned, the artisan, labouring, trading, clerking class, for which there is no real need in Canada at the present time. Now, while we have done that for the time being, that is not a permanent restriction. As I have stated time and time again during the course of my remarks, it seems to me that we must take the situation as we find it and deal with it in accordance with the economic and other conditions prevailing here.


Mr. MacNUTT:: Do you allow ablebodied men from enemy countries to take up land and farm here?


James Alexander Calder: They are excluded at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What effect does the minister think it would have on settlement in the Western Provinces if each province were given its natural resources and established its own system of immigration?


James Alexander Calder: I doubt very much if it would make any material difference. It seems to me that the question of securing immigrants will always be for the federal authorities to deal with. I doubt very much if it would be conducive to the best interests of the provinces or of the Dominion as a whole if that work were divided instead of being centralized. Some of the

provinces already have their own representatives in London. For instance last year Ontario had Dr. Creelman over there,-a very estimable gentleman. He did splendid work, but he was in touch with our central office practically every day. This year the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are sending over representatives, and the province of New Brunswick is sending over a lady to' work in conjunction with our London office in connection with women immigrants. I think that even if you turned back the resources to the Western Provinces the Federal authority will still have to keep hold on the general question of immigration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the department
any inspectors of immigrants at the ports of embarkation?


James Alexander Calder: We have our port officers. At Liverpool, for example, Mr. Kerr is our agent. He and his staff have a good deal of work to do when the boats are leaving. In addition to that, we have a woman officer at that port to look after women and children. But we do not undertake to pass people on the other side. Inspection takes place at the port of entry in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would it not be more practical if it were done on the other side?


James Alexander Calder: That is a large subject. We discussed it pretty fully on our Estimates two years ago. I have gone into it very fully with our own people and with the British authorities when I was over in London last year. There are many difficulties in the way, one of them being the cost of the staff which would be required. I threshed the matter out carefully with Colonel Amery, who is very much interested in something being done along that line, and we finally came to the conclusion that owing to the difficulties in the way and the cost attached to the work, things had better stand pretty much as they were. We have had one of our medical men not only in Great Britain but on the continent, and he has been working in the closest cooperation with the officials of the department and with the medical officers of the steamship companies and of the British Board of Trade. As a result the medical inspection provided by the British authorities is very much better than it was a few years ago, and comparatively few mistakes are made now. We have one of our doctors on the continent at the present time, Dr. Jeffs. In recent months we have got in touch with the medical officers of the steamship companies at Antwerp and at Havre. We are watching that end of the work very closely, but we do not undertake to give any certificates over there that will enable people to land here.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have expressed my
views on two or three of the Orders in Council to which the minister referred this afternoon, and I have not changed those views since I spoke last. I do not want to inflict another speech upon the committtee now, they already know my views, and it would appear that the minister does not intend to have these Orders in Council revoked, at any rate for the present. .Now, this famous Order in Council which provides that any person landing in this country, other than a farm labourer or a domestic servant, must have $250 is, I can only repeat, nothing more nor less than absurd. Apparently the minister would permit all the people of Europe to land on our shores if each individual passenger had $250, and he cares not what would happen after that $250 is exhausted in living expenses. Is not that a ridiculous position? Would it not be better for the minister to accept undertakings from rela-[DOT] fives in the form of bonds or otherwise that the passenger who wishes to land will not become a public charge in any way, or will not become a factor in the labour market? All that is required under this present Order in Council is that the intending. immigrant shall have $250. With that money in his possession he is free to enter this country and work out his own salvation. Two hundred and fifty dollars seems to bulk very large in the eyes of the minister, but I have not found that it goes very far. This week we have to pay our income tax, and $250 is not a very large sum in the eyes of the income tax collector at the present moment. For the last two or three years I have brought this question of money qualification before the minister and officials of his department. Up to last November it was $50. The cost of living has gone up, and the amount has been raised to $250. The minister tells us that it is merely an Order in Council; that it can be revoked at any time, and that it probably will be revoked in the very near future when conditions are somewhat improved. Well, we expected that the fifty-dollar qualification would be taken off last fall. Instead of that it has been increased, and all we have is the promise of the minister that he will try to see his way clear to reduce it in the near future. I am not

satisfied with the minister's explanation as to the utility of this $250 requirement, regardless of whether the immigrant in question is going to be a good citizen or a bad citizen. If the immigrant can put up $250 no question is asked, he can enter.


James Alexander Calder: He does not put up the
$250.	.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, he exhibits it. May I point out to the minister a further absurdity with reference to this $250? If an immigrant lands at a port and a well-disposed person, a large-hearted, benevolent gentleman, comes along and is willing to hand to the immigrant $250 in order that he may have permission to enter the country, it will avail him not; he must carry the $250 in his clothes; he must have it in his possession before he lands. If any person offers him $250 in Canada, it is of no effect whatever. Now, is the department sincere in exacting this $250? Are the Government sincere in saying that it is for the purpose of seeing that the immigrant shall not become a public charge? Because if they are sincere, why not accept the money from whatever source it comes, and let the passenger land? The object would clearly seem to be to keep the passenger out of the country, and it is thought that the $250 will have that effect. Well, sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. I know that in a very large number of cases' the $250 is sent to the passenger from Canada by a relative, and the passenger lands fully qualified. But if the relative, fearing that the mails may miscarry, hands the money to the passenger at the port, then the would-be immigrant is disqualified; he is not fit to associate with good Canadian citizens. That is the position with regard to this $250. I must say that the Government are not sincere when they profess that this requirement is provided for the purpose of seeing that the person in question will not become a public charge.
Now, the other test of qualification is the non-continuous journey test, and if there is anything more absurd than the $250 qualification it is the non-continuous journey test. Take the case of a man and his family who leave Roumania, perhaps to escape persecution; perhaps because they do not like the Roumanian method of living; perhaps because they are no longer desired in that country. They go to, say, Glasgow or London and live there for fifteen years. In the meantime the little ones grow up sufficiently to attend schools

and colleges. Then the head of the family hears something about this great and glorious and wonderful country and thinks it might be better for him and his family to come to Canada. They hope to improve their condition, and after all you cannot find fault with a man who wishes to improve his condition. Well, when he lands in Canada the first question put to him is: "Where were you born?" The answer is: "Roumania." Then he is asked whether he had been absent from that country beforg coming to Canada, and if so, for how long. In this case the immigrant would say: "I left Roumania fifteen years ago and have during that time been living in London. I have brought up my children under the British system. They are now able to speak and write the English language. They are first-class Cockneys; listen to their accent." But the inspector would be very much astonished and would say: "Why, you cannot enter this country; you have not come by continuous journey." If he had come from Roumania direct; if his children were unable to speak a word of English or understand anything said to them in that language; if the family had .come from Roumania direct, with everything that that implies-I am not going to go into details here-then they would be perfectly eligible for admission into Canada. But if the man had improved his condition and that of his family by living in any of the British countries even for three months, they would not be eligible for admission to this country. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, could anything be more absurd than a rule of that kind?


James Alexander Calder: Has the hon. gentleman
in mind a concrete case where a person from Roumania or any other such country, who had lived in Great Britain for a number of years and had had his children educated there, was refused admission to Canada on this ground?


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, I have many concrete cases. If the minister wishes me to do so I will send him a list of people who have been rejected for that very reason. I admit-and I wish to do the minister justice-that when I have brought cases of this kind before him he has exercised his discretion and permitted these men to enter. I know of one case which I brought to the attention of Mr. Cory, deputy minister of the Interior. It was the case of a man going to Hamilton. I think the name was Berg.


An hon. MEMBER:: Burglar?


Samuel William Jacobs: No. He could have be-'
come that, though, after he had lived a little while in Hamilton. When I went to Mr. Cory about this case he, the deputy minister, was a berg-an iceberg-in the matter of admitting the man into Canada. Finally I appealed to his common sense, to his higher reason, and so on. He told me that if I persisted in bringing cases of that kind before him so frequently it would probably affect his position and might to a certain extent affect mine. But it was only through pure good-will on the part of Mr. Cory that this particular family was permitted to enter. There were three or four children and the family had lived in England for fifteen years-that was the case I had in mind. But there are numerous other instances which I could mention. If this regulation is established by Order in Council and is not enforced, why not abolish it altogether? Now, the minister told us to-day that only about three hundred people had been rejected because they did not have the money qualification.


James Alexander Calder: At the ocean ports.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, it seems to me
that I have been in the minister's room at least six hundred times on cases of that kind. Perhaps he has carefully suppressed my cases from the files; I do not know. Certainly there seem to have been more than three hundred cases. But every immigrant realizes that he must come to this country with the $250 tied up in his sock or sewn into his clothes; he knows that he cannot enter unless he has that amount. In a number of cases the poor wretch has been short six or seven dollars. Probably he had to bribe an official in Antwerp or in some other European town in order to get decent treatment. Or perhaps the pangs of hunger were a little too strong and he had to use a little of the money; therefore when he landed he did not have the full amount and was turned back. In some cases the money had been stolen from these people. They realize, however, that it is vital that they should have the $250, and that is why so few of them have been sent back through lack of that qualification. But as to the non-con tinuous journey qualification, it is almost impossible to avoid non-compliance. If a man has been born in Roumania and has lived in England for twelve or fifteen years, he cannot qualify. It is said that even God Almighty cannot make Monday out of Sunday,-it is somewhat the same
with the immigrant; he simply cannot help it. It was a position which he could not overcome at all. That is how many of those people-about 8,000, I am told,- were rejected on account of non-continuous journey. I should like to point this out to the committee:	in the United States
there is nothing corresponding to the Orders in Council which we have here as regards non-continuous journey and the money test. Is it not strange that the United States, with a population of 110,000,000, have not a single rule with regard to stopping a passenger at a port, unless he suffers from a loathsome disease or is disqualified by reason of health? If a man has a vise from the American Consul in the place from which he started, that is sufficient and he is allowed to land in the United States. There you have a country with a population of 110,000,000 and no objection to allowing people to enter, and here with our paltry eight or nine million people, we turn up our noses and are more particular.	_
The minister stated that if a man is destined for a farm, or if a woman is a domestic servant, they can enter; they need not have a single penny in their pocket. Why is_ that? The minister told us a few minutes ago that no person can hope to make a success on the farm unless he has five, six or seven thousand dollars. Otherwise the task is a hopeless one. So it is. How can a person going to Western Canada hope to be a success if he is penniless? All he can do is to become a farm labourer. The woman must be a domestic servant before she can be allowed to enter. If she is skilled with her fingers, if she can become a modiste or seamstress or milliner, she is debarred. The man must be a farm labourer and the woman a domestic servant. We want to turn people into hewers of wood and drawers of water and then they will be eligible. What kind of people are you going to have if rules of that kind are imposed for a number of years? Every person who comes into Canada will have to be in the class that I have mentioned or he or she will not be permitted to enter. Why not allow Germans and Austrians to come into this country as farm hands or domestic servants? Surely they are good enough to work for us. The Israelites under the old law turned their enemies into hewers of wood and drawers of water and they were a great success as such. Let our former enemies be our slaves at any rate and they may



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
pay off some of the indemnity which we are promised and probably will never get.
The minister spoke about assisting farmers to go on the land. That is a splendid scheme! It would run into tens of millions of dollars. Are we in a position to do that just now? I do not think we are. I have in mind the case of the Baron de Hirseh Trust, a Jewish organization in Europe which has a number of colonies in the West, four or five thousand colonists. They started to work about twenty-five or thirty years ago and they have maintained these colonists. They have taken them from the cities,-city dwellers, as the minister says -and they have turned them into very successful farmers in the West. But they have done that at an immense cost. Those people are charged 4 per cent for the money which is advanced to them, and in many cases where they cannot pay, further sums are advanced to them, even without interest, and they are kept on the land. But it is a long story, and it has been a success only to a certain" extent. It shows, however, that the thing can be done.
The minister says: We do not want city dwellers; we do not want people who are skilled artisans; we want farmers. I tell the minister that the only way you can get people to go on the land is to make it profitable for them to be on the land. If a man finds that he is going to do better on the farm than he can in the city, he is going to go on the farm. But as long as you get people to go into the cities and they earn large salaries and live in slums in the glare of the gas-light and so on, without making farm life pleasant and comfortable, so long will you have cities filled with people of that kind and you will have no people on the farms at all. Make farm life comfortable and pleasant, and then it follows, as the day the night, that people will leave the cities and settle once more in the country. But that is not going to be done in a day. I say again that even without making farm life as comfortable and pleasant as it should be, where you have in the cities a condition where men cannot obtain employment at all, where they are working for one day and for three days they are doing nothing, so that they are on the verge of starvation, and where on the other hand you have positions vacant on the farm where they can obtain employment, these people will naturally gravitate to the farms because there is nothing which drives a person to do work which he does not care for like hunger, and he will eventually find his way on to the farm.

The artificial rules which the department makes do not appeal to me, and I do not think they appeal to any person of common sense. They are certainly artificial rules, and I do not think that they are working effectively to-day. I do not think they are working with all these restrictions that are being imposed. The undesirable immigrant who wants to come into this country will come in notwithstanding any rules which the minister may make. He will find his way in by the underground route, and that is a way which is very effective. If all these people whom we brought into this country were examined, as I am sure they were, at the ports of entry, to find out whether they were free from anarchism, bolshevism and all other isms, how is it that you have in Canada conditions such as we have had within the past year or two. Surely, these people never grew up in Canada. They came from the other side, the leaders actually came from the British Isles, and they were the fomentors of the discord in this country which has been deplored so much by the Government.
I do not know that anything that I have said has any character of freshness about it, but if it is the truth, I want to hammer it in as often as I can and I trust that in time the minister will see that perhaps after all these orders in council to which we have taken such serious objection will be finally repealed.
Michael Clark: Just by way of endorsing and enforcing what my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) has said, as regards the importance of making farming profitable and attractive, I should like to ask the minister (Mr. Calder) if he has seen the statement of a late colleague of his, Mr. Langley, which statement appeared in the press a day or two ago, that a number of farmers in the province of Saskatchewan are destitute at the present moment? That is a very serious statement. My hon. friend knows Mr. Langley very well. Mr. Langley is a man of strong and intelligent mind, and I cannot think that he would make a statement like that without having some ground for it. If there be any truth in Mr. Langley's statement, I should like to point out that that state of affairs has a very important bearing on the policy which, the minister says, the Government were enthusiastically in favour of, and that is bringing people to Canada at the present time to put them on farms. It seems a rather doubtful line of policy to encourage people to come from

foreign countries to engage in an occupation in which those already inhabiting the country, in the minister's own province, are destitute, according to the testimony of a former colleague of his in the Saskatchewan Government. I need scarcely point out to the minister that the same statement, if true, ought to make him more than cautious about embarking upon a policy of assisting people who are going to farm. That is a very doubtful project to my mind. I think that we should do well to see our soldiers through for a little while before we embark, as a country, upon any larger scheme of encouraging land settlement. I should like the minister's views on these two points in view of the statement of his colleague. Out there we all know that with the present railroad rates and the drop in prices farming in Western Canada is no picnic at the present time.


James Alexander Calder: I know Mr. Langley
very well, and I think my hon. friend from Red Deer knows him well. He is sometimes inclined to draw the long bow when in his judgment there is a good occasion to do so. What Mr. Langley said, so far as conditions in certain portions of Saskatchewan are concerned, is quite true. There is a section of Saskatchewan, and a portion of Alberta, where they have had a series of dry years, and where in consequence the conditions are far from being satisfactory. But to say that the farmers generally are in a destitute condition-well, I not only doubt the statement, but I know that it is not a fact.


Michael Clark: I did not
understand Mr. Langley to say that, nor did I quote him. I said that some farmers were destitute.


James Alexander Calder: If you look over the
record, and the facts can be easily ascertained, you will find that as a class the farmers of the western provinces generally, speaking, as a result of the last four or five years' operations, are better off than they ever were before.


Michael Clark: War prices,
of course.


James Alexander Calder: I am not speaking of
present prices. I say that the financial standing of the farmers as a class to-day is in my judgment much better than it has been for years. It is quite true that prices have dropped, and that many farmers are in difficulties as a result. I dare say that many of them did not make
their farming operations pay last year on account of the cost of labour and falling prices, but I doubt very much if we should cease our efforts to induce farmers to come to Canada merely because of a more or less temporary local condition.
Then, as regards the other question. Notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, he hesitates about embarking upon any scheme of financial assistance for farmers. I quite understand his viewpoint. I have hesitated myself even to recommend it to the Government. But I do say this, after a very careful and a pretty thorough study of the whole situation: Canada will not solve its land settlement problem in a big way until the state is prepared to assist. That is my view; I may be wrong but that is the conclusion I have come to. Take my hon. friend's own province, for example. All around Calgary, and Red Deer, and Wetaskiwin, there are large areas where /there are Hands for sale. Where are you going to get the people to go on those lands? You have to wait for the wealthy men to come. As I stated in my main argument, there are hundreds of thousands of people, able-bodied, well-trained, thoroughly capable men, who would go on the land and make splendid settlers if they had the means, but they have not, and it seems to me it is the duty of the state in the interests of the general prosperity of the country, not of the individual, to see that these men should be brought in contact with the land and the land developed. That can only be done by some kind of government assistance. Wealthy people who are well-established in other countries are not going to come to Canada,-I am speaking now generally. They are not the kind of people you are going to get, for they are doing well; they are satisfied; they have got what they want. It seems to me we must adopt some plan of state assistance in land settlement, or I fear that the problem will go on until little by little we get the country gradually settled, but that will be a very slow process. I do not say the time is ripe now, but eventually some scheme of state assistance will have to be adopted.


Andrew Knox: May I point out that many of these land companies are quite willing to sell their lands on crop payments. Were the conditions made favourable enough, does not the minister think that a great many of these people would come ifi and take up land on such terms?


James Alexander Calder: A good many of them have come in in that way. The company

still operating has brought in a fairly large number of people. They sold the land on crop payments and that is how they are operating at the present time. But you must remember that these land companies have disposed of their holdings in the main. The lands in Western Canada that are awaiting settlement-we should not be discussing Western Canada alone, because this is an Eastern Canada problem as well-are not, in the main, held by large companies, but by individuals. I own some myself. I would be glad to sell to-morrow. And there are thousands like myself who own half a section or a section of land.


Michael Clark: I would tax the minister.	-


Andrew Knox: Those lands might be made available on crop payments.


James Alexander Calder: But the trouble with individuals like myself is that we have not the means or the desire to be bothered with finding a buyer. I go on with my other business, but if some one asked me to sell, I would be prepared to sell. There are millions of acres of land held by private individuals the world over, who would be willing to sell, but there is no organization for getting them in touch with buyers. That is one of the main reasons for the creation of that association I have referred to.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Suppose a man from Roumania were to come to New York city, remain there for a year or so, and then make up his mind to settle in Canada; he would probably be turned back. Suppose he is turned back, goes bock to Roumania, and then after a while bids good-bye to his cousins there and comes direct to Canada ; would he be allowed to enter this country?


James Alexander Calder: In the former case he
would not be coming by continuous passage. Our inspectors all along the border must exercise their own judgment whether an immigrant should be admitted.


Mr. KEEFER:: What is the underlying principle?


James Alexander Calder: To admit farmers and
classes of people who are desired in this country. If this man was a mechanic, under present conditions in Canada, we would invoke the non-oontinuous passage regulation to shut him out. If we required lots of labour, and he was a labourer, we would let him come in. As I pointed out

before, if we allowed an immigrant from the United States to enter Canada, and he becomes an undesirable, we could not deport him to the United States, but we would have to pay the expense of taking him all the way back to Roumania. The Order in Council is used simply as a means of securing an end. We could waive it at any time. If a man is not of a class that we want to admit to Canada, and he does not come by continuous passage, he may be rejected, but if he is a farmer, we will suppose, he may appeal and we have power to let him in. This regulation is used simply as a means to shut out undersirables.


William Daum Euler: In the last few years I
have had considerable to do with the Department of Immigration with regard to the cases of intending immigrants. I do not say that the doors should be thrown open entirely at this particular time for the admission of all kinds of people from various countries. The department was probably justified in maintaining, at least during the winter, some restrictions in regard to skilled labour; but I do associate myself with the protests made by the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), with regard to two regulations, namely, the money qualifications of $250 for adult male immigrants, and the other regulation with regard to continuous passage from the country of origin. I think the money regulations is inadvisable. If an otherwise desirable person has all the qualifications or, if you prefer, the potentialities of good Canadian citizenship, the department should not exclude him merely because he is poor.


James Alexander Calder: There is a point in connection with the money qualification which I did not explain, and which has not so far been brought out in the discussion. It is not necessary that every man who enters should have $250. In that respect there is a discretion which has been exercised, and only within the last few days I had the case of a man who had only $190. If a man is of the right class, the class we need, and one whom it is not desirable to debar, we do not refuse him admission because he has not the $250.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I suggest that if
he is of the class you need, he really does not require to have a cent.


James Alexander Calder: That may be.


William Daum Euler: I had not heard that any discretion was exercised at all. In any case, the minister says that in the case of

farmers or domestic employees, the money qualification is not demanded. Well, I should like to know how the immigration authorities can distinguish, at the port of entry, between a man who is a farmer and a man who is an artisan. Do they simply take the man's word for it that he is going on a farm and let him in? In that event it would be easy to evade the money qualification. Apart from that, however, I do not believe in the principle of insisting that a man who otherwise has all the qualifications for becoming a good Canadian should have this amount of money. The statement of the minister as to the use of discretion is satisfactory as far as it goes, but I think that if it is desired to keep certain people out of the country for reasons other than poverty, those reasons should he stated and no one should be kept out for some reason that is after all only an excuse for excluding him. Let me say that a good many desirable citizens of Canada to-day, and men who are the forefathers, or even the fathers of gentlemen sitting in this House, would have been excluded from this country under conditions as we have them now. This country to-day needs immigration in a greater degree than ever in the past; yet the Government makes the requirements more onerous.
The other regulation to which my hon. friend referred is the one in regard to continuous passage from the country of origin. The minister asked for a concrete case, and one was given which showed what an unfair regulation this is in its enforcement. I think I could give a better one, better because actual, than the imaginary case of the Roumanian who had lived in London and whose children had been brought up to speak the English language, yet could not come to Canada, while persons coming direct from Roumania would be admitted.


Samuel William Jacobs: It was not an imaginary
case; it was one on file.


William Daum Euler: So much the worse. It
is only a few weeks ago since I called the attention of the department to the case of a man who had come to Canada some ten or eleven years ago,-it may be longer, probably twelve or thirteen years ago- and who nad never become naturalized. I think he was of Polish origin, but he was never naturalized here. He was married in Canada and had several children born here. He went to the United States, where he did not find it difficult to enter although not coming directly from the country of
origin. His children have been educated in the schools of the United States, and a few months ago this man with his family, several of the children of which were Canadian born, tried to return to Canada. He could not get in at all; he was turned back at the border, as were some 8,000 other people who tried to get in here from the United States.


James Alexander Calder: What was his occupation?


William Daum Euler: He was a tanner, returning to his old job in Kitchener.


James Alexander Calder: Were there lots of tanners looking for employment there?


William Daum Euler: I have not heard of any; in fact, there is little unemployment in my city for a reason which is not far to seek; it is the best city in Canada. However, that is merely by the way. Now, I could give another instance where the regulation worked a great hardship on worthy people.
I know of a family which desired to come from Russia. As is well known, conditions in Russia are very much disturbed, and these people were in actual danger of their lives. They lived close to the boundary and fled into what is now a part of Poland. They had not themselves the money qualification but they had friends in my city who were willing to advance them that money, as they actually did. For a time however, until the matter was adjusted by the department, and for which I wish to give commendation, there was a doubt raised as to whether they could be admitted into Canada. Why? Merely because of the continuous passage regulation. If they came from Poland, they would not be allowed to enter Canada, not coming in continuous passage from the land in which they were born. However, that matter has now been adjusted. I think the Government would be acting in the interests of the country if they removed these restrictions almost entirely.


James Alexander Calder: You add the word
"almost".


William Daum Euler: Yes. I realize that reasonable regulations must remain. I know that the department says that one reason for the regulation is that in the case of people admitted, we will say, from the United States, who originally came from Russia, if it is discovered after two or three years that they are not suitable to Canada, they may not be deported to the States, but must go back to their country

of origin. I do not see where the Government would be losing anything by that, because, if these people had come to Canada from the country of origin in the first place, they would have to be deported back to that country in any case, and the Government would not have to do anything more expensive in the way of deportation if they allowed them in from the United States or from some other intermediary country.


James Alexander Calder: There is just one point in connection with that. The transportation companies, knowing the rules that are now in force, endeavour to make certain that the people who come over are of such a class that they will not be deported or rejected. We throw the onus upon them. They know what the rule is, and in the main now, so far as continentals are concerned, it has worked satisfactorily. As a consequence of this rule a greater responsibility is thrown upon the transportation companies.


Samuel William Jacobs: They have to pay the costs of. deportation.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, in the case of the 8,000 turned back-


James Alexander Calder: I was referring to
Europe.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but there were 8,000 who tried to come here from the United States and were turned back either under the continuous passage regulation or because they did not have the $250.


James Alexander Calder: There were about 16,000 all told.


William Daum Euler: Well, that makes it worse. Is it not a fact that these people had to run the gauntlet of the immigration laws of the United States before coming here?


James Alexander Calder: They may have been
there two or three years.


William Daum Euler: Well, in that case they must have become to a certain extent americanized and accustomed to our western civilization. For that reason I believe that if they became accustomed to American ways, they might be more desirable than when they first entered the United States. But we exclude them on account of these regulations.


James Alexander Calder: Probably if the hon. gentleman saw them he would not be so sure as to that.
[Mr. Euler. 1


William Daum Euler: I should think that if they had been in the United States for some years the probability, at least, is that they have become somewhat accustomed to our ways and more assimilable in Canada. There is one other point to which I would refer. The minister spoke concerning the probability of the admission of men from former enemy alien countries at the present time. I asked him the question as to how many Germans had been admitted just prior to the war, because at that time immigration was very heavy. I think he stated in the course of his remarks that these people had been very worthy settlers in the West. Of my own knowledge I can say that the people of these races wherever they have settled in Canada-notwithstanding what we may say about the war-have developed into excellent citizens, industrious, thrifty and honest. I do not know what is in the Government's mind as to the ultimate readmission of these people, but I want to ask a question in that regard. I realize fully that there will be for a time some prejudice against these people, which, under the circumstances, is natural. But I would like to ask the minister whether, in his opinion, their admission to this country-whether it be sooner or later-would in any way prejudice the interests of Canada, except for the feeling of bitterness and antipathy towards them on account of the war. Apart from that altogether, I think that ultimately the minister and the country will find that their exclusion deprives this country of productive workers, capable of developing into good citizens, together with their children. I know, and I think the minister will bear me out in the statement, that the children of these people-taught in our public schools-which they must attend and do attend-will become the best of Canadians. There is absolutely no doubt of that in my mind and there should not be in the mind of any one else who knows them.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: While the continued exclusion of recent enemy aliens may be deemed advisable for a time, because of a certain natural feeling, I believe, after all, it is a pity that such should be the case. If we could have them we would find that they are most industrious and stable, and in the majority of ways, desirable people in a country that is in dire need of people who are not afraid to work and from whom there is nothing to fear. I do not desire to press the matter, but do express the

hope that the present regulations may be modified at no very distant date.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
FROM THE SENATE!-SECOND READING
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Fergus McKee.-Mr. Fripp.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 8 on page 83 of the Estimates, Immigration and Colonization, salaries and contingencies. The item had been under consideration since half-past three. Shall the item carry?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, before six
o'clock the minister explained the working of the Immigration Society which was formed in the West, and, as l had opened the question, I wish to say that his explanation was reasonably satisfactory.
I gathered from the minister's statement this afternoon that he had almost reached the conclusion that if we were to have a return of the days when people were flocking into our country and settling on the land it would be necessary to evolve some system to assist this class of settlers, and that he had in mind that such a system to be at all useful would run from $2,000 to $5,000 per settler. I understood the minister to say that in the western provinces there were millions of acres of idle land not too far from railway facilities, and that to a very large extent this land was held by land companies or speculators. Now, it occurred to me that to subsidize the man going on the land was rather a policy to help the speculator get rid of his land. The minister shakes his head, but in the last analysis that is how it works out. The experience of Canada from 1900 to 1914 is ample proof that it is not necessary to subsidize the settler to go upon the land. All that is necessary is to create conditions which will enable him to get a fair remuneration for his labour on the land, and thus satisfy him.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to intervene? A subsidy is
a grant. I never suggested that in any sense at all.


James Alexander Robb: No, the minister advocated
a loan. But I am leading up to prove to him that in past years it was not necessary to have such a policy; indeed, the policy of Canada was not even to assist immigrants to come to this country. I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Immigration Department, entitled Facts and Figures of Immigration, published in 1912, when the Hon. Robert Rogers was Minister of the Interior. At the end of this pamphlet is contained certain information for intending settlers, and clause 5 informs him:
The Dominion Government does not make loans of money, stock, implements or settlers' effects to immigrants in order to enable them to start farming in Canada.
That was the policy during those years. What was the result? Those were the years of our greatest immigration. People were coming into this country at the rate of over a thousand a day seeking homes, principally in Western Canada. Many of those immigrants were people of means. They were tired of conditions in the Old World where they were discouraged by the excessive taxation and the continued demands for greater armaments, and looking about for a country in which to settle down and improve their condition, they naturally turned to Canada. In those days Canada was a land of promise to such people. The best immigration agent that we had then, and the best that we can establish to-day, is a satisfied settler.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: He is the best immigration agent because he sends back word to his friends and relatives at home who are not doing very well: Gather up what you have and come to Canada where there is a field for your labour, and where you can build up a prosperous home for yourselves and your children.
Now, I submit to the minister that one of the first needs of to-day is to restore conditions to approximately what we enjoyed in those days of peace and plenty, and one of the first requisites to that end is to reduce taxation, and the high cost of transportation. Our very high freight rates after all do not strike the eastern farmer so severely as they do the farmer in the West, who has to pay transportation costs on a long haul before his products reach the seaboard. The present tax upon the products of the western farmer in the

form of high freight rates is undoubtedly a very great discouragement to the development of that part of the Dominion, and I submit to the minister that if he wishes to restore confidence and to create conditions that will make the western farmer satisfied and induce immigrants to go on our idle land and cultivate it, he must devote his energies and his talents to bringing about such conditions as will approximate those which obtained so far as freight rates are concerned prior to the recent advances granted to the railway companies. The records show that our greatest period of immigration, as I have already said, was from 1900 to 1914. Does the minister con-tra'dict that statement?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I will quote him some figures. The steadily increasing stream of immigration to this country between 1900 and 1914 is shown by this record: 1900, 23,000-I am leaving out the odd figures; 1901, 49,000; 1902, 67,000; 1903, 128,000; 1904, 130,000; 1905, 146,000; 1906, 189,000; 1907, 262,000; 1908, 146,000-a decrease; but by 1912-1913 the figures jumped up to 402,000. Does the minister say that we have had any greater immigration since that period? I fancy my hon. friend will not contradict that statement.


James Alexander Calder: My hon. friend mentioned a fourteen year period-from 1900 to 1914. As a matter of fact, the peak load of our immigration was during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is quite correct.


James Alexander Calder: Three years is a very different period from fourteen years.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I need take up the time of the committee in giving the figures with regard to the cost of that immigration, but I think that the minister will admit that the cost during those years was comparatively small as compared with the cost of immigration to-day. I shall not follow that feature of it, but conditions have changed; the cost of transportation has increased, and also the cost of help. The policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in establishing ready-made farms -fifty in all-brought about such conditions that hundreds of persons presented themselves at the immigration agency of that company seeking to buy lands and to pay cash for them. Conditions in England to-day must be even better, so far as immigration to Canada is concerned, than 
they were in those days, because taxes in the Old Land, though high in those days, have since enormously increased. I submit that if the minister can bring about conditions in Canada whereby the man who goes on the land will get fair remuneration for his labour, there will be no need of subsidies, no need of advancing money to settlers to enable them to go upon the land. At a time when New Zealand was advancing money to settlers Canada was getting all the settlers she could take care of without offering any such advances. If we devote our energies to the restoration of sound, normal conditions under which the people will not have to pay out too much for their labour, for taxes and for transportation, we shall be in just as good a position with respect to immigration as we were in those years to which reference has been made. I hope that my hon. friend will make haste slowly in the matter of introducing any scheme that will help speculators to dispose of their lands under conditions highly advantageous to themselves. The best way to deal with this matter is for the provinces to tax idle lands so that it will be unprofitable for speculators to hold them idle; then the settlers will be able to buy them at fairly reasonable prices, go upon the land, and produce.


Mr. STEVENS:: I wish to say a few
words upon this subject, with particular reference to one phase of immigration. But first let me express very briefly my views on the subject of immigration generally. Canada can absorb and will welcome all the bona fide settlers who care to come to her shores. We should exercise great care, however, in admitting the type of immigrant a large number of whom came to Canada in years gone by. I should not like to be too specific in that regard, but I will give expression to a view which has been widely held in this connection-generally speaking we should seek our immigration in northern Europe, not in the Balkan States, in extreme sourthern Europe or in Asia. That is all I care to say on the general question. But I do wish to address a few words to the committee in connection with the type of immigrant with which we on the Pacific coast are more particularly concerned. It is a question which in the last few months, for many reasons, has been assuming very serious proportions, and it is one Which I think might well engage the attention of the Government and of Parliament at this time, before the problem becomes even more acute

than it is. I refer generally to what is known as the oriental immigration problem.
For many years we have had very severe restrictions on oriental immigration. I shall not go into the details; the matter has been discussed in the House on many occasions and most of the members are pretty familiar with it. It would be too long a story to inflict upon the committee at this time; I shall simply deal as briefly as possible with some of the most imminent features of it.
I say that we have had some strict regulations regarding this immigration; yet it is true that those regulations, particularly during the last ten years, have been evaded in one manner or the other and a considerable amount of Asiatic immigration has taken place. Let me speak for a moment of the Chinese immigration. Whatever I say regarding the Chinese or the Japanese is not with any racial prejudice; my remarks are based upon exceedingly sound economic grounds and reasons. In connection with Chinese immigration we did admit students, recognizing that it was a desirable thing that Chinese students should have the advantage of western education. We did that freely, but we found that a very large number were entering as students, and immediately upon obtaining access to the country they were abandoning their scholastic pursuits and taking up different forms of labour. A few years ago, therefore, the restrictions in that regard were made more stringent. Then we admitted Chinese merchants, recognizing the desirability of promoting trade. To the amazement of the department and of all who had given study to this problem, it was found that the number of Chinese merchants entering Canada suddenly rose from three or four in a year to three or four hundred and then to over a thousand, showing that a loophole in the regulations had been discovered and taken advantage of. Now without going into any more detail, I want to say this bo the minister, very clearly and very firmly:	in my estimation-and in this I
think I correctly interpret the minds of the people on the Pacific coast who understand the problem very well and who are constantly brought into contact with it- these evasions on the part of the Chinese constitute sufficient reason, for the issuance, at least for the time being, of an exclusion order against Chinese immigration, with the possible exception of business men, tourists, and others of that character. But it would seem desirabe that immigration from China should be stopped for the time being, the attention of the Chinese authorities being drawn to the fact that they have deliberately evaded our regulations where we endeavoured to treat them reasonably, and thus secured entry for large numbers under false terms.
The Japanese immigration situation has been controlled very largely under regulations or agreements entered into between the Laurier Government and the Japanese Government, and brought about by a mission undertaken by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), whereby the Japanese Government voluntarily restrict their immigration. In this regard, however, while the immigration has been kept pretty well within bounds, there are evidence that the understanding has, perhaps, been somewhat strained. I do not have very serious complaint as to the number that come in; I think they did strain the number somewhat, but not very seriously, though sufficiently, I believe, for the Government to give to the Japanese Government a warning that they must scrupulously observe their agreement; otherwise, we shall do what I have suggested in connection with the Chinese, namely, put on a complete exclusion order.
Let me turn to another point in connection with Japanese immigration in particular. There was a recent test case in British Columbia, when a provincial law which was passed in connection with the employment of coolies on Government contracts in British Columbia-I have forgotten the details of it,-was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, because it was in violation of the spirit or terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, and I desire to take this opportunity of urging upon the minister that, in the consideration of the renewal of this treaty during the coming year, Canada should not only reserve, as she did before, the right to control her immigration, but go further than that and reserve absolute right to control not only immigration into Canada, but the dealing with the citizens or the nationals of Japan while they are in Canada. I will give the reason for this. Within the last five years there has developed in British Columbia, as in California and other Pacific coast states, a problem which is becoming so acute that, it matters not whether this Government or Parliament take cognizance of it now or not, they will certainly take cognizance of it before long. The part of wisdom is to take cognizance of it now. What I say as regards British Columbia applies to Cali-

fornia and other States. The problem is this. There are in my province districts which have been settled for twenty, thirty, or forty years, the choicest districts in British Columbia, fruit growing districts, districts intensively cultivated for the production of vegetables and so forth. Three or four Japanese or Chinese will come in and buy a piece of land, we will say, 1,000 or 100 or 300 or 400 acres, and will pay almost any price for it. Immediately that little group of orientals settles in the centre of that district, the land adjoining depreciates in value, and they buy that cheaply and thus the colony spreads. They will work their coolies from daylight to dark; they work them under conditions under which no self-respecting white man can live or dare to live, and under conditions under which we as a Parliament would not expect and would, indeed, scarcely permit, any of our people to live, Therefore, it is impossible for our people to compete with them under those conditions, and furthermore, it is not reasonable to ask our people to live alongside of communities under such conditions of life as I have indicated.
We hold in British Columbia that it is the duty of the authorities-I will come to the question of whose duty it is in a moment-to make it impossible for these orientals to hold land by ownership or by lease. That may sound very drastic, and I was approached not long ago-I have no hesitancy in making the statement here, because we might as well be frank about the question-by the Japanese Consul who asked me if this question was likely to come up regarding Japanese holding land in British Columbia, as it has come up and been legislated on in California. I told him that I did not know whether it would come up or not; but I suggested to him that it should not be a very difficult question to solve because the Japanese Government could not possibly object to our passing the same laws and regulations regarding settlers in Canada as they in Japan pass regarding settlers in that country. This seemed to embarrass him somewhat, for this reason. No Canadian is allowed to buy or own land or settle in Japan; they will not allow the foreigner to take up land there. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for us to pass in Canada a law or regulation similar to that which obtains in regard to our own nationals in) Japan. That appeals to me as sound logic, aside altogether from the merits of the case or the very serious problem which I have rather

sketchily outlined to the committee. The question arises-and this has been a political football for years:	under whose
jurisdiction does such a law come? It has been contended that inasmuch as the British North America Act specifically gives to the provinces exclusive jurisdiction in matters of property and civil rig-hts, it is within the jurisdiction of the province. That has been my opinion for many years; but while I have not under my hand a letter from the Justice Department, I am going to state to the committee a matter which can be verified, and that is that it is the opinion of the Justice Department that inasmuch as there is a treaty between Japan and Canada, legislation as regards Japanese nationals is within the prerogative of Parliament only and not within that of the province. That is borne out by the Privy Council case which I referred to a moment ago. In other words, it is the duty of this Parliament to legislate on the question of Japanese nationals holding or leasing land in any province or in the Dominion at large.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. member say that he has an opinion of the Department of Justice to the effect that we can legislate in reference to property and civil rights?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that. I
said that there is an opinion from the Justice Department which I have downstairs in my office-I should have it here- in which they state, that inasmuch as there was a treaty, it was not within the right of the province to legislate, and the matter would he one to be dealt with by Parliament. I was going to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). It may be that in face of the treaty it may not be possible for this Parliament to legislate. Therefore, what I have already said to the minister has double force, and I ask the minister to take cognizance of this point and see to it that the right of Canada in reference to legislation, as regards both immigration and the holding of land in Canada, shall be kept free from any entanglements in the treaty. In this connection if I chose to take up the time of the committee, I could bring before it an opinion by Joseph Chamberlain expressed many years ago when Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government first had this question up. The Eight Hon. Mr

Chamberlain who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, if I remember correctly, gave expression to the opinion that Canada should reserve just the rights I have mentioned. Therefore, in doing so, we are not conflicting with any policy that has been held in the Motherland, at least up to the present time.
Another point which I bring to the attention of the House is this, and in doing so I shall refer to an article I saw in one of the eastern papers the other day; I think it was the Montreal Gazette. A certain clergyman said in that article that British Columbia would fall to pieces economically without Oriental labour. That is an utterly false economic doctrine. I shall not analyse it or attempt to refute it in detail, because it would take some time, but I do want to state this to the committee, which will be obvious as soon as I menion it: Orientals never have pioneered, and never will. I want the committee to get that point, because in a country like Canada I think the acid test of the value of an immigrant is whether or not he is prepared to help in the work of opening up this country- pioneering, as we call it. Now the Oriental never pioneers. He never has in any country. If you go into any of your eastern cities, you will find him in the heart of the city, and in the cities of the West it is the same. When it comes to agriculture or horticulture, you will find that the Oriental goes into a district that has been settled for years, where markets are established, and where the industry is not only established but prosperous. There he will acquire land, and as I have already mentioned, gradually eliminate those in the neighbourhood and secure control of the market. That is his method. I do not blame him for it, but I say that we are a foolish people if we allow a type of immigrant into Canada who does not contribute to the opening up of the undeveloped new districts of this country.
Another point to which I wish to direct attention is the question of assimilation. I lay this down, and I bring it to the attention of the minister and his department, as an absolutely fundamental doctrine in connection with the building up of a country, that an immigrant is only valuable to the extent that he is capable of being assimilated with the population of the country. That is a fundamental doctrine, I contend, that we cannot escape. I go further. I say we are not only justified, but it is our duty to reject immigrants who are
incapable of assimilation. Generations of experience on the Pacific coast, as well as the experience of innumerable other countries, shows beyond all peradventure that Orientals, and the Chinese in particular, cannot be assimilated. They are not assimilating, and they do not assimilate. I have but to refer hon. members who have visited the Pacific coast to San Francisco, where there are Chinese of the second and third generations, some of them intermarried with whites, and their national traits and characteristics are still there distinct and clear. Indeed I will say this, and I say it advisedly; if anything, the offspring of an intermarriage between an Oriental and a white invariably results in a lower and inferior type than either of the parent races. I have had some considerable experience in watching this in other countries, as well as in Canada and the United States, and that is invariably the case. So I say to the committee, on the question of assimilation not only as regards Oriental immigration but immigration from parts of Europe as well, we should lay it down as a principle to be followed by the Immigration Department that only those should be invited and admitted to this country who can be properly assimilated.
I wish to take one further general subject under review before I sit down, and it is a very important one. I refer to the frightful increase of the pernicious drug habit on the Pacific coast. This evil is not by any means restricted to British Columbia, but is gradually spreading to eastern cities, and while not wholly attributable to the Asiatic, yet the basis of the traffic is Asiatic. We have seen in Victoria and Vancouver and in other cities, but in these two in particular, almost innumerable cases of clean, decent, respectable young women from some of the best homes dragged down by the dope traffic, and very, very largely through the medium of the opium dens in the Chinese quarters. I am going to bring to the attention of the committee a little evidence that came to my hands this morning, and I have literally reams of it if 1 chose to burden the committee with it. This evidence came to me in this morning's mail in the shape of clippings from the Vancouver Sun and other Vancouver papers, showing the situation out there. Let me read very briefly a few extracts. The first is an extract from the Vancouver Sun, and refers to the provincial jail just outside of Vancouver:
Of the 320 inmates of Oakalla prison, at the present time 110 are drug addicts. This an-

nouncement was made at last nights mass meeting by Dr. Hoyes, prison doctor.
I think that authority is sufficient. This was at a mass meeting called by the United Veterans at which the business men of the city, the Board of Trade, Kiwanians, Rotar-ians, and the various other organizations common to a Canadian city, together with the war veterans and others, were present. The report goes on:
As a result of a meeting held last night in the City Hall council chamber, it was decided to call at once on the Dominion Government to bring in drastic amendments to the Drug Act that will provide severe penalties for drug traffickers.
Let me just say here that the trafficker in drugs corresponds to the bootlegger in the liquor traffic, but he is infinitely more evil in his purposes and practices than the commonest of bootleggers. The quantity of drugs it is necessary to carry is so small, and so very valuable, that detection is very difficult, and every conceivable device is resorted to in order to secure the admission of the drug and to distribute it. A man could very easily handle in a very small space thousands of dollars worth of opium or cocaine, and that is commonly done.
The report goes on:
A committee composed of civic officials and members of public organizations was formed to draft the amendments, which will be brought before another meeting to be held next Wednesday, and when they have been passed will be forwarded to Ottawa with the demand that urgent action be taken.
I read that just to indicate the nature of this meeting. Chief of Police Anderson of Vancouver had this to say:
The drug evil is a very insidious thing and not confined to any part of the community or country, but is an international question. It is no new thing to the police. We have battled with it for years and have never relaxed in our efforts.
The report goes on to say a great deal of the evils of the traffic, with which I shall not burden the committee. What I wish to bring to the attention of the minister in particular, and of the committee is this: I would urge as forcibly as I can that any Oriental found guilty of trafficking in drugs should be deported at once. There is nothing the Oriental fears more than deportation. He does not want to be deported because Canada is a veritable paradise to him as far as money making is concerned, and he does not desire to go back to China. Such a step would have a deterrent effect. I also urge strongly-and if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty)

were here I would address these remarks to him-that those of the white race, citizens of this country, found trafficking in drugs should be punished with more severity than the law at present provides. We should also take up the great question of dealing with the poor victims of the traffic, but that is another matter not strictly connected with immigraion. My intention in bringing this subject to the notice of the committee at this time is to see to it that the basis of this traffic, the Oriental living in the country, is given to understand that the life of Canada is not going to be prostituted for the sake of providing some gain for those who carry on this traffic. Just to show that even the Orientals themselves recognize the seriousness of this business, I may say that I have in my hand the report of an organization formed only a week or so ago in Vancouver, headed by the Chinese consul, which recognizes the danger that faces these people themselves in inviting public indignation, and which has taken steps to deal with the traffic to a certain extent. But it is the duty of this Parliament, and particularly of the Administration, to deal in the most severe manner with any Oriental found indulging in or trafficking with drugs in this country. I do not wish to delay the committee at greater length. This problem is an intensely important one, and I have given but a few points in connection with it; but its significance is such that I cannot over-estimate or over-emphasize it. Canada wants, as I said at the outset, bona fide settlers; we want pioneers, but not parasites. We want men who will go and settle the country, but we do not want a race of persons coming into Canada who, experience shows beyond all question, are incapable of assimilation, and who will not take part in building up the country from its raw state.


Mr. DENIS:: I listened this afternoon with a great deal of care and attention to the speech of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), and I think I may fairly summarize it as amounting to a request for counsel and advice. The minister gave the committee a complete demonstration of the work of his department, and he seemed to be so anxious to obtain advice that he forgot, as the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), observed to announce the policy of the Government. However, upon that observation of my hon. friend the minister submitted the Government's policy, and I must say that, to a

large extent, I am quite pleased and satisfied with that policy, my only objection being that it does not go far enough. According to the minister, there are at present hundreds of thousands of people in Europe who are only awaiting an opportunity to come and settle in Canada. Well, if I were the minister I would give them a chance to do so. I would do nothing indiscriminate or indiscreet, but I would make my gauge as wide as possible and allow them to come into the country on as large a scale as conditions would permit. My policy would be to make sure of the physical and moral fitness of all applicants, and if I were satisfied that in those respects they wholly complied with the standards I would set, I would admit them, provided they were not of such an age that they would become a liability rather than an asset to the country. I believe that every man, woman and child in Europe whom we can possibly accommodate, whose physical condition is satisfactory, and whose morals are such as would ensure their becoming good Canadian citizens, should be admitted into this country. There might be reservations as to the amount of money which immigrants should have, but I would not insist upon that requirement, because, after all, it is not the amount of money which a man has in his pocket when he comes to this country that will make him either an asset or a liability; it is his own personality, his own self, if I may say so. We require that every male immigrant shall have $250. Well, that is only two months' wages of the average workman in this country. All through last winter shanty men had been working and earning salaries ranging from $100 to $175 per month. Now, it might very well happen that an immigrant, who might possibly prove a wonderful asset to the country, would not be able to show $250, because we can quite understand under what conditions these people exist in Europe to-day. Europe is filled with millions of people who lost their all in the war, and I do not see how the Government can reasonably ask a man, who might be of great value to the country, to work over there and save $250 in order to come here. We know that it is a physical impossibility for a great many of them to do this. In years past it was said that a good immigrant coming into this country was worth a thousand dollars to the state. If an immigrant who will make a first-class citizen is such an asset to the country, why should we not admit every good immigrant who can come?
One of the objections raised is the question of unemployment; it is asked: how are we going to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people when there are already thousands out of employment? My answer is that unemployment does not depend upon population; it is due to temporary economic conditions. For instance, if in the United States to-day, with a population of 110,000,000, 'they have not proportionately greater unemployment than we have in Canada, that is a good argument against the theory that unemployment is attributable to largeness of population. In this country we have great natural resources, vast areas and everything to take care of millions of immigrants, and in my opinion, unemployment is very often due to the fact that men will not do the work that waits to be done. When there are between half a million and a million people in this country without homes, and Mister Bricklayer is to-day asking $1.25 an hour for laying bricks let him cut down his price and there will be employment. Let the man who would not work in the shanties for less than $100, or $125, or $150 per month cut down his price; lumber will then be cheaper and there will be employment. The conditions created by the war are abnormal. Labour has come to think that it must get its price or it will not work. Well, my policy for solving the difficulty is this: let us get the people from Europe to come to Canada and work at reasonable wages if the people of this country will not do so. Let us get these people to build our railways, and develop our forests, our agricultural resources and our other natural resources; let them come to this country and take part in its general development and let them produce. It is not so very long ago since the Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking of the ways by which Canada would be enabled to pay its enormous debt, was making this appeal: Strive, work, produce. That is what he was saying and that is what any sane man in this country would say. We have to work and produce, and if every unemployed person in Canada would work at a reasonable rate there would be employment for every one.
Let us look through the country to-day. Let us go west or let us go east, and we will find that the farmer is seeking everywhere for labour. On the other hand the cities are crowded with hundreds of thousands of people who have left the farm because farming was not good enough for them. These people prefer leaving behind their "goodly acres", to use the poet's ex-

or three European ports, and thus save the rejected from the hardships to which they are exposed when they are sent back from this side. We must never forget that a great many of these intending immigrants are practically starving, and how can they undertake to pay their passage to Canada if they are not sure of being accepted when they come here? When they are returned to Europe they are in a far worse condition than when they left for our ports.


James Alexander Calder: If an intending immigrant is rejected the transportation company must refund his passage money and take him back to the port of embarkation.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am glad to hear that.
But it seems to me it would be worth while to have two or three officials in Europe to examine these people, especially if the Government is to adopt the policy of opening wider our doors to European immigration, because if I understood the minister rightly this afternoon, the Government seems open to conviction on this point. Therefore, I want to place myself on record as being in favour of admitting as many immigrants as we can get, so long, as I have already said several times, they are physically, morally and mentally fit to come here.
Now, as to subsidizing farmers, I am afraid we cannot afford to go into that venture at the present time. We have been doing this for the soldiers, but they had peculiar claims to the attention and care of the Government. For the present I would not go to that extent, but it is a proposition which might be considered a little later. The minister said this afternoon that we are free to receive hundreds of thousands of immigrants if we are willing to receive them. I would say, then, let us make a good selection of these immigrants, but let us not be too strict; let us leave outside none who are fit physically and mentally. We must not deny admission to these people simply because we have unemployment or because some labour organization complains that the newcomers would take their jobs. We shall never develop our country through a narrow policy of that kind. What this Government must do in order to keep pace with the other nations in the unprecedented race for progress and success and development which has followed in the wake of the war; what we must do in order to bring about the quick development which we need, is to admit into our country hundreds of thousands of good immigrants.
IMr. Denis. I


Mr. NESBITT:: Mr. Chairman-


James Alexander Calder: In my remarks this
afternoon I did invite a full discussion of this problem. After all, the question should not be made a political one. There are marked differences of opinion, as was evident from the views expresed by both sides in the previous debate on the subject, and before the session closes I should like to see a very full discussion on the broad questions of policy that we have had under consideration this afternoon. It was arranged before we got into Supply to-day that the Minister of Railways should enter upon some of the Estimates of Railways and Canals. While I would like to see the discussion prolonged I doubt whether any harm would be done by our sleeping over the matter, so to speak, taking into consideration all that has been said, and then coming back to it in a day or two. If that is agreeable to the committee I would move to postpone consideration of the item now under discussion in order that the Estimates of the Department of Railways may be proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: While I have no objection to the postponement of the item, I would not have taken more than two hours in the remarks which I was going to make, and the minister might have let me have my say.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Would the minister,
coming down to the practical side of the question, explain the large increases in salaries? While there have been increases in most departments-and decreases in some cases-practically every employee who comes under my genial and over generous friend is getting an increase.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele) :: Further discussion on this matter is quite out of order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was simply putting a question following upon the speech of the minister-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.
Item stands.
Canals-Chambly: improvements, $26,000.


Hon. Mr. REID:: This amount is required for renewing the river face of upper wing dam, $20,000, and for spare lock gates, $6,000. The upper wing dam which separates the canal from the river to form the upper entrance is an old -

wooden crib structure built over eighty years ago. In spite of periodic repairs it is now in a badly decayed condition and is on the verge of collapse. It is proposed to replace the river face of the dam by a concrete wall. The amount asked for is to provide also three pairs of lock gates as spare for locks number 3, 4 and 6. The locks on the Chambly canal are of different dimensions so that gates are" not interchangeable, and spare gates for these locks are required as an assurance against prolonged interruption of navigation.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Was any money spent last year on this work.


John Flaws Reid: No.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Is the traffic on
these canals anything worth while, and of what does it chiefly consist?


John Flaws Reid: The Chambly canal is part of the canal system between the Hudson river and the St. Lawrence; it connects through to New York. The traffic consists largely of coal coming up and lumber going down.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: The minister says
that no money was spent last year. In volume 3 of the Auditor General's Report, page w-2, I find that $1,000 was spent.


John Flaws Reid: Of course, we have on all the canals a repair staff which carries on ordinary small repairs from time to time. This appropriation is for work outside the ordinary repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-Carillon and Grenville:	improvements, $25,000.
John Flaws Reid: The main dam at
Carillon was built in 1897. It consists of a stone-filled timber crib, the apron of which has periodically caused trouble. Repairs are necessary to the extent of the amount mentioned in order to save the main structure from complete failure.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: What kind of material is used in making these repairs?


John Flaws Reid: The structure consists of stone-filled timber crib.


Frank S. Cahill: Will tenders be called
for this work?


John Flaws Reid: It is done by a repair gang along the canal.


Mr. McGIBBON (Argenteuil):: This is in the constituency which I represent. I have often heard advocated in this House
large repairs that were not, to my mind or to any one else's mind, really necessary, but these repairs in the county of Argenteuil are necessary. Quite a number of repairs are required on this canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lachine canal: improvements, $50,000.
John Flaws Reid: This amount is required to repair the old bridges over lock No. 5 at Lachine. These bridges form part of the route known as the Lower Lachine road which is a main thoroughfare into the city of Montreal. The two present structures were built in 1878 and 1888 respectively and are inadequate for the present traffic, being only 16 feet wide. Pedestrians have been forced off the bridge into the canal by passing motor trucks. About 2,000 trucks and 12,000 pedestrians pass over these bridges each day during the coming season. During the fiscal year 1920, up to the date of the memorandum furnished by the department, the amount of $68,557.97 was paid to Messrs. Quinlan and Robertson, contractors, from Lachine income.


Samuel William Jacobs: Were the pedestrians
fished out?


John Flaws Reid: Yes. The hon. member knows these bridges better than I do, and he knows that the work is very urgently required.


John Howard Sinclair: I
thought the minister said something about an income. Is this a toll bridge?


John Flaws Reid: This amount was
expended last year from income account.


John Howard Sinclair: How is it that the Government has to build bridges for pedestrians?


John Flaws Reid: The Government must build bridges across their canals. This is part of the regular roadway.


John Howard Sinclair: Why does the city not build them?


John Flaws Reid: Where the Government construct a canal, that is, dredge the earth out and make a canal, they must provide a bridge as part of the highway. When the Lachine canal was constructed, it was cut right through the solid earth and, therefore, the Government must provide bridges to take the places of the roadways that were there before.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The population is so dense on the two banks of the canal that



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
really two bridges are not sufficient for the movement of pedestrians and carriages. I know the city of Montreal has been for a while receiving deputations from the citizens of that district. Does the minister state that only two bridges are to be built there?
John Flaws Reid: At the present time, that is all in connection with which we have work going on. I agree with the hon. member. These bridges were constructed in 1878 and 1888, and the population has increased very much since then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To-day this is one of the most thickly populated districts. It is a manufacturing district on both banks, and really I do not know that two bridges will be a great relief to the people.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will this amount cover the whole expenditure?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am conversant with conditions, and I thoroughly approve the expenditure.


John Flaws Reid: Yes, it is very important.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is absolutely necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soulanges canal: improvements, $9,500.
John Flaws Reid: This is for reinforcing weir at lock No. 4, $4,500, and garage for a canal motor truck, $5,000, total $9,500. Most of the structures on the St. Lawrence canal are founded upon clay. In 1918, a serious washout occurred under the breastwork of lock No. 4, which caused an interruption to navigation for eleven days during a busy season and involved a very considerable expenditure for repairs. To guard against a recurrence of the trouble at the adjacent waste weir, it is proposed to reinforce it by steel structures. The Soulanges canal is really one of the most important canals on the St. Lawrence system.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where is lock No. 4
situated?


John Flaws Reid: I have been through the canal many times, and it is down towards the lower end that the break occurred, probably near Cedar Rapids.


Mr. PARENT:: I notice last year $30,000 was, voted for the same purpose. Was the full amount spent last year on those improvements?


John Flaws Reid: We spent $14,941.36 out of the appropriation of last year.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that this was due to a landslide.


John Flaws Reid: In building the Soulanges canal, heavy banks were constructed and the clay slid out and made a very serious washout there.


Samuel William Jacobs: This canal was built only a few years ago at a cost of fourteen or fifteen million dollars, was it not? Could the contractors not be held responsible?


John Flaws Reid: Not now.


Samuel William Jacobs: Are they dead or insolvent?


John Flaws Reid: You could hardly blame the contractors because, in all these contracts for construction work, the Government have their engineers in charge right on the ground, and the contractors carry out the work under the supervision and instruction of the engineers, so that really our engineers would be to blame for an error, if there was an error.


Samuel William Jacobs: We shall have to let it slide.


John Howard Sinclair: My
hon. friend said that $30,000 was voted last year and that some $14,000 of that amount was spent. In the Auditor General's Report, volume 3 page W-2, I find: "Soulanges canal improvements, $70,980.21." Where did the minister get that money?


John Flaws Reid: That was to repair
the damage that occurred on account of the landslide, and a Governor General's warrant had to be issued to pay for it.


John Howard Sinclair: How was the money obtained? I understood the minister to say that he got a vote of $30,000 for that purpose and that he spent less than half of it. The matter requires some explanation.


John Flaws Reid: The $30,000 was the ordinary vote for repairs on the canal, and $14,000 was spent on that. But we had this accident, a landslide, and $70,000 had to be expended to repair the canal. In a case of that kind, where an accident happens, the only way in which you can get the money to' pay for the necessary work is by a Governor General's warrant. That item will appear in the list of Governor General's warrants.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
not this money have to be voted afterwards?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, but it was paid by Governor General's warrant.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
Parliament get no notice of these payments by Governor General's warrant.


John Flaws Reid: Yes, ten days after Parliament meets a list of all the Governor General's warrants is laid on the table.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec dredging fleet; new tug, $25,000.
Mr. EDWARDS:: Although what I am
going to refer to probably does not come under this item, may I ask whether it is the intention to light the Rideau canal this year?


John Flaws Reid: I could not say. That
comes under the Marine Department. This item of $25,000 is to provide a new tug. The destruction by fire of the old Soulanges gasoline launch last summer leaves the Soulanges canal without any tug boat, thereby greatly increasing material transportation costs. On the other hand, the Quebec canal dredging fleet has two tugs, the Frank Perew, an old tug built over 50 years ago and practically falling to pieces, and burning a ton of coal per hour, and the Carillon which has no berth accommodation for the crew and must always be accompanied by the Ark.


Georges Parent: Where is this new tug
going to be built?


John Flaws Reid: We shall call for
tenders if we decide to get a new tug. I have been seeing if we could not get a second-hand tug at a very much less cost. We had an offer of a steel tug at $20,000, but I thought that was too high. We may possibly be able to get a second-hand tug for less than this amount. In case we buy a new tug, tenders will be called for and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer.


John Howard Sinclair: Has
the minister a whole fleet of these tug's? I see that this item is for the Quebec dredging fleet. I have heard of the navy and of the merchant marine, but I never heard of the Quebec dredging fleet before.


John Flaws Reid: It is a fleet of small dredges working along the canals to keep them clear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the coal cost on these tugs?


John Flaws Reid: It depends where it comes from. Nova Scotia coal is pretty high.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is $8 a ton. I
suppose the tug that my hon. friend said burned a ton of coal an hour works ten hours a day, and that therefore she would consume about $80 worth of coal a day.


John Flaws Reid: We have abandoned her.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How long was she carrying on with that capacity for burning coal?


Samuel William Jacobs: Could we not turn that obsolete tug over to the Department of Marine to be used in connection with the Canadian Navy?	,


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Would the minister say who made the offer of a second-hand tug in Montreal?


John Flaws Reid: We advertised in the newspapers and there were about a dozen replies. The nearest to what we wanted came from a man in Montreal. I cannot remember his name just now, but he had a steel tug. We thought the price he wanted was too high, and we have not done anything about it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was that tug on the Cornwall canal?


John Flaws Reid: I think it was at Sorel.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Did this offer of a tug come from the Sorel Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, from Mr. S. McNaugh-ton, or the Leclair Shipbuilding Company?


Samuel William Jacobs: Or from L. Cohen and Sons?


John Flaws Reid: I do not remember.


Georges Parent: Did I understand the minister to say that the tug Frank Perew was destroyed?


John Flaws Reid: We are abandoning her. She is 50 years old.


Georges Parent: Is the minister keeping her crew on? '


John Flaws Reid: We are not keeping any crew until we can get a tug. This boat was abandoned last fall. We have not stai'ted work on the canals yet this season.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Would the minister tell us at what price he was offered the secondhand tug in Montreal?


John Flaws Reid: For $20,000. It was a second-hand tug, 8 or 10 years old, and required a lot of repairs. I thought it would be better to buy a new tug, and for that reason we did not accept the offer.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What would a brand-' new tug cost?


John Flaws Reid: Twenty-five thousand
dollars is the estimate given to me.


Georges Parent: How much does it cost the Government to keep that Quebec dredging fleet at work the whole season?


John Flaws Reid: $9,083.78, as shoTfrn on page W-3 of the Auditor General's report.


Georges Parent: On page W-92 of the Auditor General's report under the heading of "Quebec Canals" I find the amount stated at $31,349.47.


John Flaws Reid: If my hon. friend wfll turn to the next page, W-93, he will find that the dredge vessels of the Quebec Canals cost $9,083.75. In the $32,000 odd there is included the "Lachine canal, income, dredging," $16,652.77, and the bonus votes.
St. Anne's lock: improvements, $3,500.


John Flaws Reid: This amount is required for renewing the upper entrance to the pier. It will complete the work of renewing the top of the timber crib with concrete. This is one of our most important locks.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is it?


John Flaws Reid: As you come in from the St. Lawrence up the Ottawa, the St. Anne's lock is below the Grand Trunk bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Ours lock: improvements, $4,500.
John Flaws Reid: This is required to
renew the tops of two mooring piers above the St. Ours lock in the Richelieu river. The piers are required as anchors during the placing and removing of flash boards on the dam, and also during repairs to the dam. These piers were built over forty years ago and have now rotted away above low water mark.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent: Improvements, $515,000.
John Flaws Reid: This sum is to be
expended on the following work: New lock and dam at Bobcaygeon, $205,000; at Lake-field, $40,000; Otonabee river dams, Nassau, $175,000; construction of lock guage, $25,000; reservoir dams, $25,500; Mississauga lake dams, $8,000; concrete railings for river walls, $6,000; painting lift locks, $6,000; miscellaneous works, $9,500. This
fMr J. D. Reid.]
is a part of the Trent canal system and the new lock at Bobcaygeon, for which $205,000 is required, has been delayed so long that it is now imperative that the work should be proceeded with.


Mr. VIEN:: Why?


John Flaws Reid: The locks have got
into a serious condition.


Thomas Vien: Do you say that the lock at present is not in proper condition and could not stand for another season?


John Flaws Reid: No, we kept it going during the war, but the engineers have at last reported that they will no longer take the responsibility if anything happens.


Thomas Vien: Have you the report of the engineer?


John Flaws Reid: No.


Thomas Vien: I should like to see it.


John Flaws Reid: The engineers have
reported that the Bobcaygeon lock, the Nassau dam and the Lakefield dam are in imperative need of repair, and that the city of Peterborough and other places are in grave danger if the work is not proceeded with. It has ben already too long deferred.


Thomas Vien: What is the character of the damage already done?


John Flaws Reid: There has been none
so far.


Thomas Vien: These structures were in
good condition until the close of last season, were they not?


John Flaws Reid: No; for some time
past their condition has been dangerous.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Are these the amounts
that are to cover contracts awarded just prior to the Peterborough election? I understood from the press reports at the time that large contracts were awarded a week prior to the taking of the vote in Peterborough.


John Flaws Reid: No. The hon. member surely does not think we would do a thing of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Georges Parent: Honi soit qui mal y
pense.


John Flaws Reid: The Bobcayegon contract must have been let a year and a half ago.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Has any work bees
done there?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, it must be half
through.


Georges Parent: How much money was
spent there last year?


John Flaws Reid: The date of the
contract is December 12, 1919, which was a long time before the Peterborough election. The sum of $122,000 has been spent on that contract.


John Archibald Campbell: What will be the
total?


John Flaws Reid: 


John Archibald Campbell: caygeon lock?


John Flaws Reid: been spent, leaving a
Is is estimated at
That is, the Bob-
Yes; $122,000 has balance of $204,000.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: When was the contract awarded for the dam on the Otonabee river for $175,000? Was not that awarded a week prior to the Peterborough election?


John Flaws Reid: It was awarded on
the 4th February, 1921.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I struck the right
number that time.


Samuel William Jacobs: So that it was three days before the election.


John Flaws Reid: That vote had been made a long time before, and we never thought of it in connection with the election.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before this item is voted-


Thomas Vien: It will not be voted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The committee is entitled to further information regarding the report of the engineers. The minister says that a report was made in due form, specifying certain repairs. The committee should have that report for perusal. There seems to be a suspicion on this side that these repairs were ordered and the contracts awarded when a certain election was impending, and it seems strange that the minister should not be able to put his hand upon the report now. These expenditures are pretty large, and I see also that repairs are being made on the canal near the Chateau Laurier. I do not see anything quoted last year for these repairs, and I want some information in regard to this matter.


John Flaws Reid: These items for Bobcay-geon and Lakefield were voted a year ago,
and the contracts let in 1919. At that time I had the report of the engineers. The Nassau dam has been in the Estimates too, for, I think, about three years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But it had to be revoted.


John Flaws Reid: Yes, I know. This dam is owned by the Canadian General Electric Company, whose power house is connected therewith, and the department is under obligation to maintain the dam in perpetuity. An appropriation was voted last session to proceed with reconstruction of the dam.


Thomas Vien: What was the amount last year?


John Flaws Reid: Fifty thousand dollars, I think; there has been a certain amount every year.


Thomas Vien: That was voted; how much was spent last year?


John Flaws Reid: There was nothing spent on it. We had to make an arrangement with the Canadian General Electric that they should pay a share of the cost of completing the renewal of the dam. But this was at the time we took over the Trent canal and we had to agree that the dam would be maintained there in perpetuity.


Thomas Vien: When did you take over the Trent canal?


John Flaws Reid: Oh, that was at Confederation; at least many years ago.


Thomas Vien: Is the proposed work an
extension of the existing system?


John Flaws Reid: No, it is one of the
old dams that was on the Trent canal. There are a number of water powers and dams that have been there for very many years.


Thomas Vien: Are you renewing them
entirely?


John Flaws Reid: This is one we have
to renew entirely because if there was a break it would be a very serious matter for the town of Peterborough. The dam is above Peterborough.


Thomas Vien: I think Peterborough should look after itself. I would like to know whether this is a completely new work? Has the dam got to be repaired, or is a new dam required?


John Flaws Reid: It is a completely new dam.

Mr. V1EN: Are you going to rebuild it on a very extensive scale?


John Flaws Reid: The construction will
be of a more permanent character. We are putting in concrete now.


Thomas Vien: What was the nature of the first dam?


John Flaws Reid: Just wood filled with
stone. We are now making the dam more permanent.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister a few
minutes ago informed us that the contract for rebuilding the dam on the Otonabee river, amounting to $175,000, was awarded on February 4, 1921, or just three days prior to the election in Peterborough. Does this not appear to the committee as being rather significant? I think it is only fair that the committee should have the report of the engineer justifying the expenditure of this amount of money. It is something more than a coincidence that the contract should have been awarded on the date referred to and that the election took place only three days afterwards.


John Flaws Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I have no objection to let the item stand, and permit any hon. member to see the whole of the file dealing with this matter from beginning to end.


John Archibald Campbell: Before the item
stands I wish to ask how much money was spent on the Trent canal last year. I see an item of $427,000, and there is a re-vote of $25,000. Does the total of $452,000 represent the expenditure last year?


John Flaws Reid: No, In round numbers
$350,000 was spent last year. In reference to the Nassau dam I could send a copy of the engineer's report to any hon. member who wishes to see it. Or he can take the file and peruse the whole of the documents to be found there-I have no objection to letting him do so. I will send an official with the papers to any member who wishes to see the file and in the meantime we will let the item stand.


Thomas Vien: Not only in respect to the
Nassau dam, but I would like to see the papers in regard to the whole of the improvements on the Trent canal covering the expenditure made on that canal last year. I suppose the minister understands what I mean?	.


John Flaws Reid: I have no objection at all. I am willing to send an official with the files to the hon. member, or if he prefers
CMr J. D. Reid.]
he can come to the department and see them.


Thomas Vien: I would prefer that the minister would send an official with the file to my room at ten o'clock to-morrow.


John Flaws Reid: Well, I will send the
Chief Engineer, Mr. Bowden, over with the whole file.


Thomas Vien: I would like the minister to understand that what I want is the file showing not only the whole of the details as to the Trent canal improve-
10 p.m. ment for this year, but also all the details of the expenditure on those improvements last year.


John Flaws Reid: Certainly, I understand.


John Archibald Campbell: Are we not to be furnished with particulars regarding the item on page 33 "Chargeable to Capital $139,000?" I do not think that has been passed. It seems to me that these two items should be taken together, and the total of the two is over $800,000.


John Flaws Reid: We will come to that
item in a few minutes and we will then find out what the committee wants.


Andrew Knox: I should like some information from the minister as to the class of freight that passes through the Trent canal.


John Flaws Reid: It is all local freight.
The reason for that is that part of the Trent canal is not yet completed-that is the upper entrance to the Georgian bay. There. is a little more work to be done but when that is completed freight can be caried from the Georgian bay right through to the St. Lawrence.


Andrew Knox: This canal has been in
existence for a great many years. Is the traffic heavy on it?


John Flaws Reid: No, it will not be heavy until the canal is completed. There is another matter in connection with the building of the Trent canal which I think is worthy of consideration. Its construction will furnish a good waterway, and if the system is ever completed right through to the Georgian bay it will afford a cheap route for bringing grain from the Georgian bay to the St. Lawrence river.
Mr, CAMPBELL:	Does the minister
really think that?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, I do and I will
tell the hon. member why. If the hon.

member knows that territory at all, he knows that it will give a very short route from the Georgian hay to the St. Lawrence river. On account of its being a small canal, about a thousand ton barge canal, I suppose the hon. member feels it would not pay to take grain through it. Well, if my memory serves me right about two-thirds of the grain that was formerly carried through, Buffalo for New York went through the Erie canal and the vessels on the Trent canal have a larger capacity than those on the Erie canal.


Thomas Vien: At present?


John Flaws Reid: The Erie canal was
rebuilt I think, four or five years ago. What I say is that for the last twenty-five or thirty years the barges that carried so much grain on the old Erie canal were smaller than the barges that go through the Trent canal.


Thomas Vien: How do they compare with
the vessels on the new Erie canal?


John Flaws Reid: I am informed they are thirteen, or fifteen, hundred tons as compared with a thousand tons-that is about the difference. The Trent canal will give a great tourist route through a very attractive country. There has also been a very large amount of power developed owing to the construction of that canal.


Andrew Knox: I would like to follow this
matter a little bit further in view of the fact that these sums are being voted annually. We are asked to vote a considerable sum of money each year for the Trent canal and up to the present we are getting very poor returns for it. In view of the fact that there are many places needing transportation facilities at the present time the thought occurred to me that it would be well to make this a permanent route by using this money to macadamize it, or something of the kind.


John Flaws Reid: If this money is not
expended very serious damage will result to the towns along the route by reason of these locks and dams washing away.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before the item stands I would like to have some information from the minister regarding a certain contract with the Canadian General Electric Company, to which he referred a few minutes ago. The minister said, if I understood him properly, that he was bound to keep these locks or dams in repair because he had a contract with this company. Surely if a contract exists with the company the
company ought to be made to pay its share. I think it is in better financial standing even than the Government; its credit is higher.


John Flaws Reid: I said a power dam
was built there many years ago, which the Government had to build and keep in repair in perpetuity. That dam is worn out and must be repaired, otherwise the Government would be responsible for any damage that resulted if the dam were washed away. In reconstructing the dam any extra work over and above what would be the Government's regular share the Canadian General Electric will pay. We are looking after that, but as a matter of fact there never was any objection by the company to paying its share. That is the situation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there a contract between the Government and the company to that effect?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister
make a copy of that contract a part of the file which will be exhibited to the hon. member for Lotbiniere?	*


John Flaws Reid: All contracts in connec-' tion with the Trent canal are on the one file.


Thomas Vien: How much of last year's
vote was expended on the Trent Canal improvements?


John Flaws Reid: About $350,000 for
permanent improvements.


Thomas Vien: What is the total estimate of the proposed improvements on the Trent canal?


John Flaws Reid: There is some work to be done at the upper entrance, but I have not got an estimate yet. That is for capital account.


Thomas Vien: It takes a lot.of capital.


John Flaws Reid: Yes, it does. I myself always felt, probably like many other members, that we were not warranted in making that expenditure on the Trent canal, but after going through the canal two years ago I must say that I think the expenditure was warranted. It started many years ago when both parties were urging the construction of this canal.


John Howard Sinclair: What
was the traffic on the canal last year?


John Flaws Reid: Those statistics are
kept in the Trade and Commerce Department.


John Archibald Campbell: Did the minister see any freight traffic on that trip?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, there were several large steamers running principally from Peterborough up through lake Simcoe as far as Orillia.


John Howard Sinclair: Pleasure boats?


John Flaws Reid: No, quite large
steamers.


Thomas Vien: Under 1,000 tons?


John Flaws Reid: About 1,000 tons.


James Alexander Robb: While the deputy minister
is looking up information for the member for Guysborough, I might draw the minister's attention to the fact that there is considerable water-power along this canal.


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: What is the total quantity of water-power leased by the Federal Government along that line, and what is the revenue received from it?


John Flaws Reid: When I went through the canal, if I remember rightly, about
125,000	horse-power was capable of development; that is, some of the locks where the dams were they were not using. The Sun Life Company owned the water-power there, and the Hydro Electric purchased it. The revenue from that was about $2 per horse-power under some leases and under others less. As the hon. member will recollect from the discussions in the House on previous occasions, some of the leases were granted at a very low rental. The Hydro Electric-I am trusting to my memory now-is paying to the Federal Government $60,000 to $70,000 a year. They took issue as to our being entitled to that revenue, claiming that it belonged to the Ontario Government. However, the courts decided the matter in our favour recently. We got a cheque from the Hydro Electric a few days ago for $125,000 on account of the rental since they took the lease over three years ago.


James Alexander Robb: Are not the leases on that canal similar to the leases on all our other canals? They were originally fixed on a $2 basis, in consideration of the lessee doing a certain amount of the development work?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The lessee pays for the
water and does the development work-the head race leading up to the flume.


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Did I understand the minister to say that if this dam was not maintained the lessee would have no water power?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, the hon. member
is right. That dam was built many years ago, and we must maintain it.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not the dam part of the development work?


John Flaws Reid: No.


John Howard Sinclair: You
could not develop power without the dam.


John Flaws Reid: The dam was constructed at Lakefield to build the lock, and of course that dam must be maintained. When it was constructed the power was sold to certain persons in perpetuity, and we agreed to maintain the dam. There are a number of leases on all of our canals, and some (of them are for ninety-nine years, some for a longer term, and others for terms of twenty or twenty-five years. A good many of those leases have been expiring during the past few years. Some years ago the Government passed an Order in Council raising the rate of $2 up to $4, $5 and $6. I think $6 is now our limit. The rate depends on the quantity of power that is taken; for a small quantity it is $6, if a larger quantity is taken the rate is a little less.


John Howard Sinclair: They
built the dam for the purpose of navigation?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Then
it was discovered that it developed power?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: And
the powers have been leased to the Hydro Electric?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: At a
very low rate.


Thomas Vien: And the Canadian General
Electric.


John Howard Sinclair: Or
some company. It strikes me that the repairs ought to be done by that company. That is part of the work of keeping up

the system, and it seems to me rather unreasonable that if the Government is selling the power at such a very low rate it should have to keep that dam in repair. According to the minister we are building a new dam. Does he intend to develop power there?


John Flaws Reid: We are only renewing an old dam, we are not building a new dam at another point. This old dam has been in existence for a great many years. As the hon. member states, some of this power is leased to the Hydro Electric and some to the Canadian General Electric. It was leased many years ago, not by this Government. Probably the leases held by [DOT] the Canadian General Electric and the Hydro Electric were granted many years ago by the Dominion Government to the original lessees. The Hydro Electric simply got a transfer of the Seymour Power Company's interests. That company got some old leases from lessees that had been granted them probably thirty or forty years ago for terms running from fifty to sixty years. Then they got some other powers as they were developed along the Trent canal. I think that during the time Mr. Graham was minister the Seymour Power Company got some additional power, Mr. Graham charging them a rental which was fair and reasonable, having regard to the prices being paid for power at that time. The Hydro Electric simply takes over these leases and carries out the contract that the Seymour Power Company had, paying the same rental.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister now answer my question about the traffic?


John Flaws Reid: Fifty-three thousand
tons of traffic passed through the canal last year, consisting mostly of forest, mineral and agricultural products. Some coal from across Lake Ontario, is put into these small boats and goes from Trenton up to Peterborough. In that way it has had quite an effect, or will have, of reducing freight rates through water competition. There is quite a large manufacturing district along the Trent canal. There is Campbellford, quite a manufacturing centre, Peterborough, Lakefield and on up to Orillia.


John Archibald Campbell: Do I understand the minister to say that the operation of this route keeps down the freight rates on the railways?


John Flaws Reid: Water competition assists in cheapening rates.


John Archibald Campbell: The minister does
contend that it keeps down the rates on the railways?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


John Flaws Reid: We have the information to-day that our railroads are in need of traffic. What is the use of creating another highway to take traffic from railways which are already short of traffic?


John Flaws Reid: This is not a new project. I was in this House thirty-one years ago, and they had started it then. It is simply a matter of repairing work that was done many years ago, and the repairs are quite necessary. The amount spent on this waterway system up to the present time is $18,000,000. We have 125,000 horse-power developed and we have a waterway which I believe will be of great advantage after it gets through to the Georgian Bay canal.
Mr. REID (Mackenzie)): Even if this work had been started in the days of Adam, that would not mean that we would have to continue it if it was of no benefit. Strange to say, the amounts for this canal do not all appear- on the same page of the Estimates, and that is rather confusing. We find that the total asked for this year is $864,000. How many feet of water is on top of the sills of the locks in this canal?


John Flaws Reid: From Peterborough up, eight feet, and six feet between Peterborough and Lake Ontario. It will accommodate a 1000-ton barge.


John Howard Sinclair: According to the minister, the traffic which passed through this canal last year was a mere bagatelle, only five or six ordinary shiploads. It appears that we are developing hydro-electric power there but we are not aiding navigation at all; it is not a commercial venture so far as navigation is concerned. I always had an idea that this canal was started as an election canal; it generally crops up when there is an election contest in that vicinity. If it has been going on in this way for thirty years and we have been spending three or four hundred thousand dollars year on it, is it not time to call a halt, when money is so scarce? We should not be spending large sums on such a venture at a time like this. I suppose the province of Ontario makes money out of the power which is developed there, but that does not help the commerce

of the country or justify the existence of the canal for commercial purposes. I notice by the report of the Auditor General, volume 3, page W-3, that my hon. friend has a staff of officers on the canal which cost the country last year $97,218.42. That is a very large amount to pay for the business done on that canal. I would like to have a list of these officers.


John Flaws Reid: The details will be
found on page W-107 of the Auditor Gen-ehal's report, volume 3.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Are all these officers necessary?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, at every lock you have to have a lockmaster and one or two men.


Alexander William Chisholm: According to the
figures given in the Auditor General's report, there is an expenditure on staff alone of almost $2 a ton for the amount of traffic handled, and I assume that other incidental expenses must be added to that. It is a very large amount of money to spend for that amount of traffic.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister has said that 125,000 horse-power is developed along this canal at a value of $2 per horsepower, or $250,000.


John Flaws Reid: I said that the whole of the 125,000 had not been used.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: How much did the department receive last year from that source, how much from freight traffic, and what was the entire revenue derived last year from the operation of the canal?


John Flaws Reid: No tolls are charged on the canals; there is no revenue from that source. I will give the hon. member the information as regards the revenue for the water-power. The Hydro Electric took issue with us after they got the Seymour Power Company; they claimed that that power belonged to the Ontario Government and that the rental should, therefore, go to the Ontario Government. It was a case of a private owner claiming that he should not pay for power. The case was tried with the result, of course, that the Ontario Government won its case. The Hydro Electric have admitted that they should pay this, and they have paid $125,000 on account.


Thomas Vien: For arrears?


John Flaws Reid: Yes. There is so
much revenue that we should get from
[Mr. Sinclair.1
the power users. That has all been collected, save a balance that is yet due by the Hydro Electric who have agreed to pay it and we expect it almost every day.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The information which '
the minister is to give would cover actual contracts in force at the present time.


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If, as the minister
states,-and I have no doubt that what he states is correct,-the Ontario Government and the Hydro Electric are disputing the right of the federal Government to control this canal, I would suggest-


John Flaws Reid: They do not do so now, as regards the Trent canal. That matter has been settled.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is rather unfortunate, because, in view of the results obtained in the operation of that canal, it would be entirely in the interests of the federal Government if the Ontario Government were made a present of this canal and made to look after these repairs and so on. I do not think the federal Government have anything to gain by holding this canal. It would be a sound proposition if they would induce the Hydro Electric and the Ontario Government to take the thing over altogether.


John Flaws Reid: The Ontario Government are not anxious to take this over. They seem to be operating the Timis-kaming road successfully, and I would not mind giving them the National Transcontinental too if they would take it.


James Alexander Robb: I am not disposed to agree with the minister and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) as regards handing this over to the province of Ontario or the Hydro Electric Commission. If, as the minister says, there is
125,000	horse-power available now, with the possibility of greater development, at the minimum price of $2 established years ago for this water-power, it is worth at least $250,000 a year in revenue.


John Flaws Reid: Easily that.


James Alexander Robb: With the rearrangement
proposed by the department a few years ago of the rentals on all the canals, and with the increased cost and value of power, this will be a rather valuable asset to the Dominion. I do not see why, if there is a readjustment of these rentals, there should not be an even greater revenue to

the Dominion. I can understand that it would be hard to raise the rentals on some of the old leases that are made for ninety-nine years, but on the new leases there should be an increase on the present price of $2.


John Flaws Reid: I agree with the hon.
member, and I was agreeably surprised when I went through to find that we had developed 125,000 horse-power and built all those locks and made a good canal at a cost of $18,000,000 odd, or possibly less than $150 a horse-power. I also feel, having gone through that canal, that if we ever get it through to Georgian hay- and there is very little work to be done now-this will he quite a route for bringing grain down from Georgian bay points. It is a short route and these water routes help to cheapen transportation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member for
Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) takes issue with my suggestion. The situation seems to me to be like this. The minister has told us that he has been in the House for thirty-one years and that during all that time the experience obtained by him and the federal Government has been very little different from what it seems to be now. The situation seems to be: "Live horse and you will get grass." You will get revenue in years to come. If we go on spending money year after year in this way, I cannot see any good business sense behind this proposition. In 1919-20 if you look at the Auditor General's Report, Volume III, page W-2, you will find this amount spent for Trent canal improvements, $77,251.36. On page W-3 there are these further items:	Trent canal staff,
$97, 218.42; Trent canal repairs, $63,343.48, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 spent on the Trent canal in 191920. We have a further demand in this item for Trent canal improvements of $515,000 and the item to rebuild wharf at Lindsay, $10,000. I think the minister stated that the revenue was in the neighbourhood of about fifty or sixty thousand dollars. If the minister calls that good business, I take issue with him, and I would object to the federal Government continuing to own this property. It would be good business if the federal Government could get rid of this along with the National Transcontinental and several other things, if they could hand these things over to the Provincial Government of Ontario who seem to be making a success of these things. Bv the way, they are making the
Temiskarning and Northern Ontario a paying proposition. If they can make the Trent canal a paying proposition and the Canadian National Railways a paying proposition, the federal Government should hand over these federal white elephants to the Ontario Government, as they _ seem to be able to make a success of similar propositions.


William Daum Euler: The minister, a few
minutes ago, made a statement which we are all aware of, but which I have never been able to understand, and it is that the canals of Canada are free, The Dominion of Canada has hundreds of millions of dollars of capital invested in the canals of this country. I for one fail to understand why those canals should not be made at least self-sustaining. Why does public property in the shape of canals not receive an adequate return to sustain it, whereas in the case of other transportation systems, such as railways, the Government makes a charge? The public canals are used by private interests for their benefit, and I do not see why they should not pay for what they get. I may be desperately ignorant on something that is generally accepted as a proper procedure.


John Flaws Reid: About 1897 or 1898
when the Hon. Mr. Blair was minister, the canals were made free for this reason: The Americans took off the tolls on the American canals, and if we had kept the tolls on the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, of course, all traffic from the West would go via Buffalo to New York. The canal tolls on a cargo of grain amount to a few hundred dollars, and a small fraction will turn the grain by another route. We wanted this grain, produced in Canada, to be transported via our own canals.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is going to the
United States just the same.


John Flaws Reid: It was the Welland
canal and the St. Lawrence canals that they had mostly in mind when they made all the canals free.


John Howard Sinclair: Are
the American canals still free?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, they are all
free.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister think
the country is compensated in any way for the heavy expenditure it has made on these canals by making them free?


John Flaws Reid: I can remember when
we collected in tolls on the canals about $500,000 a year. Now if you collect that much, it means just that much off the value of the goods through the canals. The enlargement of the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals very materially reduced the rate. I can remember when vessels 'passed through those canals with a cargo of 20,000 bushels, and the rates were very high. Then the Government of the day decided to enlarge the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals to accommodate vessels of 14 feet draft and 253 feet in length. The late John Page, who was chief engineer at that time, when constructing the canals said that they would be good for 50 or 100 years.


John Archibald Campbell: When was that?


John Flaws Reid: That is probably 30
years ago, but the enlargement to 14 feet had hardly been completed when the canals were again found too small for larger vessels, with larger cargoes. I can remember when we paid 20 cents a bushel on grain from Chicago to Prescott, at the head of the St. Lawrence canals, and I can remember that just prior to the war the rate on grain from Port Arthur to Prescott was as low as 2 cents a bushel. If times were normal, and wages were as they were before the war, my opinion is that grain could be brought from Port Arthur and Fort William to Prescott or Kingston for about 3 cents a bushel, and one-and-a-half cents from Kingston to Montreal.


John Archibald Campbell: Via the Trent canal?


John Flaws Reid: No, via the Welland
and St. Lawrence canals. My hon. friend from Huntingdon knows this canal system practically as well as I do, if not better, and I think he can corroborate my statement that the Beauharnois canal, when it was enlarged to 14 feet, was found too small even then.


William Daum Euler: I am not finding fault with the work of enlarging these canals and reducing the transportatidn .costs. I am very glad indeed if the cost of transporting grain from the west has been reduced, as the minister states, from 20 to 2 cents a bushel, but I think that is all the more reason why those who are transporting the grain can afford to pay something for the privilege of using the canals constructed by the money of the people of all Canada. My point is this: if it is right to use public money for the purpose of making transportation free for the benefit of 	.
private individuals, why not make the railways free too? I am not advocating that you should, but I do believe that the principle is right that the users of the public canals of Canada should pay the cost of maintaining the canals.


John Flaws Reid: If we had a toll on grain coming from the West via the St. Lawrence route, it would mean one of two things; either that the farmers of the West must take less for their grain, or else it would go via the Erie canal and New York, where there are no tolls.


John Archibald Campbell: It goes that way
now, does it not?


John Flaws Reid: It goes via the St. Lawrence.


John Archibald Campbell: The bulk of it goes via Buffalo.


John Flaws Reid: During the last two or three years perhaps, but prior to the war the bulk of it went down the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Vien: And since the war?


John Flaws Reid: It is coming back
again. We cannot get the grain to come via the St. Lawrence route if we put the tolls on, unless the farmer will take less for his grain.


Thomas Vien: Why not take the grain over the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Quebec? The distance is much shorter than over any other railway. That system of transportation has never been taken full advantage of by the present Administration or its predecessor. There is some mystery about it that can only be explained when the minister condescends to take the House into his confidence.


John Flaws Reid: That will come up when we are discussing the railways.


Thomas Vien: We will surely not forget the minister on that occasion. In connection with this item, there is something that is absolutely unjustifiable. We are asked to pay $97,000 in wages alone to employees of a canal which carried 53,000 tons of freight in a year. That item of $97,000 is for wages alone; it does not cover maintenance or other expenses. Last year we were asked to vote for Trent canal improvements $427,000, of which amount the minister says $350,000 was expended. This year we are called upon to vote an item of $515,000 for the same canal. I say that that is absolutely unjustifiable, and I do

not think the House will believe the minister when he says that this is only for maintenance and absolutely urgent repairs.


John Flaws Reid: And there is another $10,000.


Thomas Vien: Yes, and $10,000 to rebuild a wharf at Lindsay last year, and $9,000 this year, and there are other items at different places in the Estimates. I say that this looks much more like general elections than General Electric. I think that this item should stand until full particulars have been given by the minister.


John Flaws Reid: It was to stand.


Thomas Vien: Yes, but we know the gentleman was once called the foxy minister, and before the hon. gentleman gets away with this item, we want to tell him the particulars in regard to which we require an explanation. He was kind enough to offer to have an official of his department here to-morrow, but we want to tell him now the particulars we want explained. One of them is the expenditure last year of $350,000, and another is the detailed information in regard to that item of $515,000 for this year. He might give us also a statement of the general scope of the improvements for which we are voting large sums of money every year. The minister says that we have already spent $18,000,000 on the Trent canal to. provide transportation facilities for 53,000 tons of freight, and I believe that this freight could easily be transported by other means of transportation in this country which have been provided at very great expense. For these reasons I should like to have a statement of the general scope of the improvements which are contemplated by the department, so that we might be able to judge as to what commitments we are faced with and what is to be done with these various votes which the department is asking the House to grant every year.


Georges Parent: I think the minister said a few minutes ago that a contract was entered into to rebuild a part of the Trent canal, and that the contract was awarded some time previous to the Peterborough election. Was there just one tenderer, or were there more? If so, how many were there, and what was tendered by each of them?


John Flaws Reid: The chief engineer tells me that there were four or five tenders. I forget myself how many there were.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Who received the contract?


John Flaws Reid: R. Sheehy and Sons, Peterborough, the lowest tenderers.


Georges Parent: Are they Conservatives?


John Flaws Reid: I really do not know.


Thomas Vien: They are, surely.


John Flaws Reid: I never knew the name before; I never heard of them until after the contract was given.


William Daum Euler: What is the cost of
operating and maintaining these free canals of Canada?


John Flaws Reid: What canals?


William Daum Euler: All of them.


John Flaws Reid: On page W-3 of the
Auditor General's report, there is given a list of the canals, and the total is $1,579,114.74. In addition to that, there is an expenditure in connection with statistical officers.


Thomas Vien: How much does that cost?
, Hon. Mr. REID:	It costs $36,360.27.


William Daum Euler: Is there any revenue
from these canals?


John Flaws Reid: There is the revenue
from the water-powers. There are water-powers on all the canals- on the Welland canal there is a lot of power, and there is also power on the Soulanges, the St. Lawrence, the Lachine, and the Trent. I cannot say how much revenue is derived from these water powers.


Thomas Vien: Is all of it harnessed?


John Flaws Reid: The water-power on
the Trent canal is not all harnessed; I think about 60,000 horse power has been developed, but there is potentialy about
125,000	horse power.


Thomas Vien: I understood the Hydro
Electric was short of power?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, but this is in
another locality. There is plenty of power in this particular locality, some of which is privately owned.


Georges Parent: What is the quantity
of water power produced on the Lachine canal, and through whom is it sold?


John Flaws Reid: I shall have to get
that information from the office, although it is in the Auditor General's report. There are quite a large number of lessees on the Lachine canal. A good many of the leases were given seven or eight years ago, and as they expire new rates ate being charged.

There is a regular rate now. Some leases have many years to run yet at a very small rental.


Georges Parent: Has any development
been made by the Government?


John Flaws Reid: When the.canals were constructed the weirs were put in and the owners of the mills developed from them into their own factories. In building a dam it is easy to put in weirs so that the water can run through into a man's mill, and it can be done with little expense.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What is the rate charged for water-power?


John Flaws Reid: It is between $4 and
$6, depending on circumstances. I shall have that information when we are on these items again. I will bring a copy of the Order in Council that fixed these rates.


Thomas Vien: Will this item complete the improvements on the Trent canal?


John Flaws Reid: No. For a number of
years repairs will have to be made on the Trent canal. It was taken over at the time of Confederation and the works must be renewed. Money will have to be spent also to open up into Georgian bay.


John Archibald Campbell: That can stand until financial conditions are better.


John Flaws Reid: We are only doing
work now that must be done.


John Archibald Campbell: You do not propose
to do further construction work now?


John Flaws Reid: No.


Thomas Vien: Will you bring the plans
to-morrow?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, Mr. Bowden will
be over with the plans of the Trent canal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This item stands, does it not?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, I am letting this item stand.
Item stands.
Trent-To rebuild wharf at Lindsay, $10,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood it was arranged with the leader of the Opposition that we should close at eleven o'clock. However, it is not quite eleven yet.


John Flaws Reid: I was keeping my eye on the clock, but there are other items relating to the Trent canal here. The next one is to provide for the rebuilding of the
[Mr J. *. Reid.]
wharf at Lindsay. I had the engineer go down there and he states that the wharf should be rebuilt. My good old friend, General Hughes, made a strong plea that I should put this item in for him. I said I would and I would like the committee to pass it, it is a re-vote.


Georges Parent: Is there any reason why these wharves should not be built by the Public Works Department?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, we build a few wharves along our own canals. This is connected with our own works and our own men build them. This wharf was built by us a good many years ago and it is in a very bad state of repair.


Thomas Vien: This is a good illustration of the policy of the Government. The minister has just stated "General Hughes asked me to put the item there and I did so."


John Flaws Reid: I did not make any
such statement.


Thomas Vien: What did you say then?
Hon. Mr.. REID: I said this is a work which should have been done three or four years ago. We held off on account of the war, but the work is absolutely necessary and urgent. I also said my good friend, General Hughes, has pressed for this to he done.


Thomas Vien: That is what I said, "He has pressed for it."


John Flaws Reid: It is just as urgent as any other work and I put the item in.


Thomas Vien: About two years ago there
was a tidal wave which destroyed most of the wharves along the St. Lawrence front, from about ten miles below Quebec up to Montreal, or at least to Three Rivers. In my riding of Lotbiniere there were two wharves, one of which was a government wharf at St. Croix. I urged the Government to rebuild that wharf and to give some accommodation to the population of the County because at least ten or twelve parishes used the wharf to go to the market at Quebec. The Government did not find their way clear to do so. They said the war was on, and there were so many other expenditures that had to he met. The Government indeed were too poor to spend any money in the county of Lotbiniere although the interested parties offered to give a piece of land for a deep water wharf. The Seigneur of Lotbiniere had made plans and offered to maintain the wharf if the Government

would only rebuild it. The Department of Public Works sent a special engineer down to investigate the matter. His report was favourable and the only drawback was the lack of money. A few months afterwards I received a letter from the Minister of Finance asking me to go over the county of Lotbiniere and encourage the people to subscribe as largely and generously as possible to the Victory Bonds, to the loan that the Government were then raising. I did my best, and the county subscribed $180,000 towards the management of the affairs of the country. They came to the Government and tried to induce them to spend some of that money in the riding, because many parishes thirty miles from the railroad had no other access to the market in Quebec than that afforded by the wharves at St. Croix and St. Antoine. It was of no avail-the Government (did not find their way clear to grant any money. These poor devils are still there without any wharves and without any access to the market, but the minister comes here to-night and says "General Plughes, my friend, pressed the matter so much on me that I had to put that item here. It is of course, a very urgent need for the riding of Victoria and Haliburton. The work was put off during the war but now that General Hughes is pressing so much for an item to appear in the Estimates I could not refuse that to my friend." Well, I say this is an illustration of how the money of the people of 11 p.m. Canada is spent. It is spent when friends of the Government urge it. When they press it on the ministers then the purse is opened, then the public exchequer is opened, then the public money flows freely into those ridings where it is best to let it flow, for political purposes and political aims. But I say that in circumstances like the present when the country is face to face with bankruptcy, Vhen the present administration cannot present better financial statements than the one we had from the Minister of Railways at the opening of the session, I say that it takes some-[DOT] what shall I say?-cheek, nerve, or audacity for the minister of the Crown to assert "This item was pressed on me by my good friend General Hughes". Not only this item but a great many other items have been pressed on the Government and to-day they are spending the money freely despite the dire financial
conditions that the country is faced with. They spend money freely when they see some political advantage to be derived from it. Well, I maintain that such a state of affairs should be put clearly before the public of Canada, and it seems to me that under the circumstances this item of $10,000 for a wharf at Lindsay might easily stand. Of course for the minister,-who, since the war, is used to spending millions and talking in hundreds of millions-it is a trifling amount, but $10,000 is $10,000 and if the minister would refrain from expending such sums here and there, and even larger amounts, he might find his way clear to financing his railways and canals in a more successful manner. For my part, Sir, I would be willing that the item should be struck out.


Mr. CURRIE:: Carried.


Thomas Vien: Not carried. I move that the item be struck out.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I second the motion. I have a few words to say in reference to this item.


Georges Henri Boivin: A motion that the item be struck out is certainly not in order. There is a motion before the committee that the item carry, but the hon. member has the fight to vote against it-


Thomas Vien: All right.


Georges Henri Boivin: -or to reduce the item.


Thomas Vien: That would be all right.


John Allister Currie: Carried.


Thomas Vien: Not carried. Question.
Item agreed to on division: Yeas, 31, nays 21.


Georges Henri Boivin: Item 125-


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Chairman, it was understood we would close about eleven o'clock. Therefore I move that the- committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion 'of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Wednesday, April 27, 1921.